What Counts as an “Undue Hardship” for ADA Accommodations?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a signature civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. In the employment context, it generally requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to otherwise qualified employees if said accommodation would enable them to perform the essential functions of the position. However, there is a major exception: employers are not required to provide a reasonable accommodation if doing so would cause them an “undue hardship.” But employers and employees frequently disagree over what constitutes an undue hardship, and in some cases, those disagreements can escalate to employment discrimination claims. So, what counts as an undue hardship? Our Richmond employment lawyers explain below.

First: What Is a Reasonable Accommodation?

Like “undue hardship,” there is no bright-line rule for what counts as a “reasonable accommodation.” While a reasonable accommodation may sometimes be physical, such as installing a wheelchair ramp, it can also involve adjustments to how and when a job is performed, such as:

Job restructuring
Part-time or modified work schedules
Remote or hybrid work
Modifications to tests, training materials, or policies
Providing qualified readers or interpreters
Reassignment to a vacant position

What does not count as a reasonable accommodation is the modification of a fundamental duty of the position in question. In other words, the person seeking the accommodation must still be able to do the job with or without a reasonable accommodation — the employer does not have to alter the position to match the person’s abilities. For more information about workplace accommodations, please speak to a Richmond employment lawyer.

Undue Hardship Defined

Under the ADA, covered employers must provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. Generally, EEOC regulations define an undue hardship as a “significant difficulty or expense incurred by a covered entity.” Like the other EEOC standards discussed thus far, “significant difficulty or expense” evades bright-line rules. Instead, the inquiry is fact-specific and context-driven. Employers must engage in an individualized assessment that considers each of the following criteria:

The nature and cost of the accommodation: This factor looks at what the person seeking the accommodation has requested. The more complicated and resource-intensive the accommodation is, the more likely it is to be significantly difficult or expensive. So simple or cheap adjustments (e.g., flexible scheduling or basic ergonomic equipment) are unlikely to meet the undue hardship standard, while high-cost accommodations (e.g., major facilities modifications) are more likely to meet it.
The overall financial resources of the employer and its facilities: This factor considers the employer’s overall financial resources and the facility providing the accommodation, including the size of the business, the number and type of facilities, the number of persons employed, and the effect on expenses and resources. Large employers with substantial revenues and lots of employees may be expected to absorb costs that would be prohibitively expensive for small businesses.
The operations of the employer and its facilities: This factor looks to how the accommodation might affect the employer’s operations overall and those of the facility providing it, including the composition, structure, and functions of its workforce; the ability of its other employees to perform their duties; and the facility’s ability to conduct business.

Readers should note that these factors are not exhaustive; courts can and do consider other factors as needed on a case-by-case basis. Because reasonable accommodations and undue hardships thereto are so fact-specific, both employers and employees would be well-served by discussing their individual circumstances with a Richmond employment lawyer.

The Evidentiary Burden of the Employer

The burden of proving that a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship is on the employer. The Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff in a reasonable accommodation case (i.e., the employee) needs only show that an accommodation seems reasonable on its face. Once the plaintiff has demonstrated that, the burden shifts to the defendant (i.e., the employer) to show case-specific evidence that the accommodation would cause unreasonable hardship in the particular circumstances. As you can see, the evidentiary burden on the employer is much higher than that on the employee, requiring them to go beyond what seems “reasonable on its face” and to produce specific evidence supporting their allegation of an undue hardship.

Best Practices for Handling ADA Accommodation Requests

Given that ADA accommodations and allegations of undue hardship are so fact-specific, it’s difficult to give “one size fits all advice,” but employers should keep the following considerations in mind when it comes to such issues:

Take every accommodation request seriously. Employees need not use specific terminology or reference the ADA to trigger employers’ obligations under it. Failure to act because an employer failed to recognize an accommodation request and act on it can be a costly mistake.
Engage in an interactive process. The EEOC recommends that employers and employees engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation. Failure to engage in any process may constitute evidence of bad faith.
Consider alternative accommodations before denial. If a requested accommodation might impose an undue hardship, employers should explore alternatives before issuing a flat denial. Offering alternatives demonstrates good faith efforts to accommodate the employee.
Document every step of the process, including the initial request, communications with the employee, medical documentation received, accommodation options considered and/or offered, and the rationale for approval or denial.
Come armed with evidence. When an employer denies a reasonable accommodation, the decision should be corroborated by objective evidence. Such evidence can include cost documentation, operational impact evidence, safety and compliance records, staff and scheduling data, and comparative analysis.

Discuss Your Circumstances With a Richmond Employment Lawyer

As you might have gathered, accommodation requests and denials thereof are intensely fact-specific, and there are no bright-line rules. As such, it would be in your best interest — whether you are an employee or an employer — to discuss the specifics of your case with an experienced attorney. To get started, please contact a Richmond employment lawyer at Pierce / Jewett by calling 804-502-2320 or using our online contact form.