Labor: 7 questions about the new ADAAA regulations
Employers are stuggling to understand their obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the new law.
September 26, 2011 at 09:13 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
By now, all employers should know about the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA). The ADAAA overturned the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that Congress believed had interpreted the definition of “disability” too narrowly.
Though the ADAAA went into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, the EEOC did not issue its new regulations until May 20, 2011. Now, employers are struggling to understand whether the ADAAA has changed their obligation to provide “reasonable accommodation” under federal law.
1. How has the ADAAA impacted the concept of “reasonable accommodation?”
Under the old ADA, employers frequently litigated the issue of whether or not an employee was disabled. Under the new ADAAA, it is much easier for an employee to prove he/she is disabled because the definition of disability is greatly expanded. As a result, the critical issue in ADAAA litigation will not be, “Is this employee disabled?” but rather, “Did this employer offer a reasonable accommodation?”
2. What does the law say about reasonable accommodation?
The ADAAA did not modify this part of the ADA. It is still unlawful to fail to make “a reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless … the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operator of the business …”42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), (B); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.9, 1630.15(d).
3. How should employers assess a request for reasonable accommodation?
The EEOC suggests that employers consider three questions when presented with a request for accommodation:
- Is a reasonable accommodation needed?
- If needed, will the reasonable accommodation be effective, i.e., will it allow the employee to perform his/her job?
- If effective, will providing the reasonable accommodation impose an undue hardship on the employer?
4. What is an “undue hardship?”
To establish undue hardship, the employer must show that it will suffer significant difficulty or expense, either in finance or administrative difficulties. Whether an undue hardship exists will be based upon a review of the employer's resources, and the cost and difficulty of providing taccomodations based on those resources.
5. Does employee morale justify a finding of “undue hardship?”
No—low morale is not enough. (For example, if other employees are complaining about the fact that a coworker gets to start work at 9:00 a.m. when they need to arrive by 8:00.) However, if other employees are unable to perform job duties, or if business operations are disrupted, then undue hardship can be established.
6. What are some examples of reasonable accommodation?
Examples include: job restructuring; breaks during the workday; part-time or modified work schedules; reassignment to a vacant position; acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and unpaid leave.
7. Where can employers get more information about reasonable accommodation for specific types of disabilities?
The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a good resource for employers—http://askjan.org.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readFTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Supreme Court Reinstates Corporate Disclosure Law Pending Challenge
Trending Stories
- 1LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 2Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 3Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 4The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 5Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250