Fifth Circuit Confirms that Unnecessary Delays in Providing Disability Accommodations Can Violate the ADA


Employees and employers navigating the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or parallel state law provisions - like the Utah Antidiscrimination Act - generally understand the need to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees but often overlook the issue of the timing of providing reasonable accommodations. A recent decision in May of this year from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the importance of timing in determining whether a reasonable accommodation has been provided as required by the ADA. 

In Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, No. 24-20269 (5th Cir. May 16, 2025), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of an employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, holding that a six-month delay in granting a request for a service animal could constitute an ADA violation. The decision offers a critical reminder: timeliness matters when it comes to considering and granting an ADA accommodation request.

Alisha Strife, a disabled veteran and longtime employee of the Aldine Independent School District in Texas, submitted a formal request to bring her certified service dog to work. The dog assisted with Strife’s PTSD, balance issues and mobility impairments. Despite providing multiple medical letters and certifications to her employer, the employer delayed approval of the accommodation request for six months, insisting on additional paperwork and an independent medical exam.

The employer eventually approved the request—but only after Strife filed a lawsuit and sought injunctive relief. The district court dismissed her claims, reasoning that because she didn’t suffer an injury or change in employment conditions during the delay, no ADA violation occurred. The Fifth Circuit disagreed.

The ADA's requirement to provide reasonable accommodations includes a duty to act promptly. While there is no specific time limit in which an accommodation must be provided, unjustified delays - especially when stemming from a lack of good faith and requests for information already provided - can violate the ADA. In this case, repeated demands for new documents supporting the employee's disability - even after receiving sufficient information about the disability - was evidence of a lack of good faith in the interactive process, the Court said. The Court also emphasized that the district court's focus on whether the employee suffered a physical injury or adverse action because of the failure to accommodate was error. That issue simply was not relevant. Rather, the question in an ADA failure-to-accommodate case is whether the employer provided a reasonable accommodation - not whether an injury occurred from the failure to accommodate. While injury may be relevant to the damages available, such a showing is not necessary to establish a failure to accommodate claim.

Both parties must participate in good faith in the interactive process once an employee requests an accommodation. This statutory mandate is plain and clear. Unnecessary delays may be evidence of a failure to accommodate and a failure to engage in the interactive process. 

For employers, it's important to act promptly. While there are no specific time limits in the ADA about when an accommodation needs to be provided after a request, employers must engage in the interactive process in good faith, work earnestly to determine if a reasonable accommodation can be provided, and if not, justify the finding of undue hardship or burden or provide an alternative accommodation.

For employees, it's important to request accommodations in writing, comply with an employer's policy and keep records of requests and communications. If you don’t receive timely responses, follow up and keep a written record. This can show whether the employer is engaging in good faith. If your employer delays an accommodation and you're forced to work under difficult or unsafe conditions, you may have a claim even without a formal adverse action. If the process stalls for months or feels hostile, consult an attorney. Strife’s case moved forward after she took legal action and documented the delays.

If you have questions about the ADA or UADA, or the or the accommodation process, the lawyers at Stavros Law can help. Call us at (801) 758-7605 or email us at scheduling@stavroslaw.com to set up a consultation.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FTC Extends Comment Period for Rule Banning Non-compete Agreements for Employees and Independent Contractors

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will extend the comment period through April 19, 2023 for its proposed rule banning non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. (See FTC Announcement ). On January 5, 2023 the FTC issues a proposed rule that prohibits employers from using non-compete clauses with employees and independent contractors. If adopted, the FTC rule would require employers to rescind any such clauses contained in agreements with their employees and independent contractors, and provide notice that such clauses are no longer in effect. It would also prohibit such clauses moving forward. The proposed rule can be accessed here (See FTC Proposed Rule ). The rule is expressly limited to restrictive covenants that prohibit employee mobility - accepting jobs with competitors. But the proposed rule would also reach non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions to the extent such provisions are functionally equivalent to a non-compete clause. I...
Read more

Federal Court Holds Job Applicants Cannot Assert Disparate Impact Claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1986 (ADEA)

An en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not cover disparate impact claims asserted by job applicants. You can read the opinion here: Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. The facts in Kleber are straightforward. Kleber, an attorney, applied for a senior in house position with CareFusion in response to a job posting that required applicants to have "3 to 7 years" of relevant legal experience (but no more).  He was 58 when he applied and the job was ultimately given to a 29 year old applicant. Kleber filed a lawsuit under the ADEA asserting both disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims under Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. The disparate impact claim was based upon the premise that the impact of the job limitation on experience was to exclude applications who were older, even if that decision was not the result of discriminatory bias or intent.   Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it...
Read more

New Utah Non-Compete Bill Effective as of May 10, 2016

In a move that was surprising to many, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, H.B. 251, the "Post-Employment Restrictions Act" in March of 2016. You can review the new law here , which sets a one year-limit on employment non-compete agreements starting May 10, 2016. While the Act that ended up being passed was altered significantly from the original bill that was introduced, the Act prohibits employee non-compete agreements from being longer than one year following termination, and, significantly, requires a non-prevailing employer who seeks to enforce an agreement in violation of the Act to pay attorneys' fees and costs to an employee who successfully challenges the enforceability of the post-employment non-compete agreement. What Non-Compete Agreements are Subject to the Act? Utah Code Section 34-51-201 provides that "in addition to the requirements under the common law, for a post-employment restrictive covenant entered into on or after May 10...
Read more