ADA accommodation duty requires a good faith interactive process 04-15-99
- Reprinted courtesy of Ross Runkel.

Taylor performed well as a school secretary for 20 years, and then began acting strangely at work. She was hospitalized, diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, and treated with lithium carbonate and an anti-psychotic drug. After her discharge from the hospital, Taylor continued taking lithium, seeing a psychiatrist, and getting periodic blood tests. Upon returning to work, she found there had been significant changes in her job, a new computer system, and a changed job description.

Regarding the employer's duty to reasonably accommodate, the court ruled that the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process of seeking an accommodation. The court provided an elaborate explanation of how the interactive process takes place. There are two main steps, one for the employee, and one for the employer. (a) The employee must give the employer notice of the disability and request an accommodation. This can come from a family member, as it did in Taylor's case. The information needed in the employee's notice will depend on what the employer already knows. Here, the employer already knew Taylor was psychotic at work, had been hospitalized, and was required to take medication. (It is unnecessary for the employer to know the name of the specific disease.) All that was needed in addition was for someone to ask for an accommodation. Taylor's son asked the administrative assistant for personnel, so it was unnecessary to also ask Taylor's direct supervisor. (b) Once the employer knows of the disability and the desire for accommodation, then the employer has the burden of requesting whatever additional information it thinks it needs. Employees, especially those with psychiatric disabilities, may have good reason not to want to reveal details unnecessarily, and may have difficulty relaying medical information, so it makes sense to place a burden on the employer.

Taylor v. Phoenixville School District (3rd Cir 04/05/99)

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.