So, What Exactly is the Interactive Process?

15 April 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Krista M. Cabrera

Most employers are well aware that the Americans with Disabilities Act (and similar state laws) require employers to engage in the “interactive process” when an employee requests a disability accommodation. But in actual day-to-day practice, human resources professionals and others tasked with fulfilling this obligation often find themselves stumped. “Interactive process” is a vague term, and there is a lack of clarity regarding what it means for an employer to engage in this process. As a result, employers sometimes skip this step, particularly in situations where the accommodation requested would likely cause undue hardship or simply is not possible. But these are the scenarios in which it is most important to engage in the process, as failure to do so can cause liability that could easily have been avoided with a simple discussion.

What then, is the interactive process exactly? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) internal guidelines used with its own employees provide some helpful guidance. According to the EEOC, the employer and the individual requesting an accommodation “must communicate with each other about the precise nature of the problem that is generating the request, how a disability is prompting a need for an accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may be effective in meeting an individual’s needs.” As this guidance explains, communication is the cornerstone of the interactive process, and should involve a specific discussion of alternative options in the event the requested accommodation cannot be made.

Another question that often arises is who should initiate the interactive process? While it is technically the employee’s burden to do so in the form of requesting an accommodation, according to the EEOC, an employer should initiate the interactive process without being asked if the employer:

  1. knows that the employee has a disability,
  2. knows, or has reason to know, that the employee is experiencing workplace problems because of the disability, and
  3. knows, or has reason to know, that the disability prevents the employee from requesting a reasonable accommodation.

Finally, beyond the obvious fact that engaging in an interactive process helps employers to discover and provide reasonable accommodations, in situations where an employer fails to provide a reasonable accommodation and later must defend that decision in court, evidence that the employer engaged in an interactive process can demonstrate a “good faith” effort, which can protect an employer from being hit with punitive and other damages.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI