29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats a physiological condition affecting the neurological system, such as stroke-related deficits, as a physical or mental impairment.

McKinney v. Sheriffs Office Rapides Parish · filed 2021-03-19(h)(1)

The Court understands Plaintiff’s statements as alleging that Deputy McKinney’s health deficits resulting from his stroke was his impairment because these deficits were conditions affecting his neurological system. This assertion conforms with the definition of “physical or mental impairment” under the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1).

The regulation defines physical impairment to include physiological disorders or conditions affecting body systems and identifies sleeping and working as major life activities.

Bowers v. Netsmart Technologies, Inc. · filed 2021-05-25(h)(1), (i)(1)(i)

“Physical impairment” is further defined by an EEOC-promulgated regulation: “Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” ... Major life activities include, but are not limited to: ... (i) Caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working; ...

Section 1630.2 treats a physiological condition affecting speech organs as a physical impairment and includes communicating, interacting with others, and working as major life activities, which are not to be interpreted strictly.

Dawson v. Home Depot · filed 2021-08-26(h)(1), (i)(1), (i)(2)

As to discrimination based on disability, a prima facie case for discrimination under the ADA requires that (1) the employee is a disabled person as defined by the ADA; (2) the employee is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) the employee suffered discrimination from an employer because of that disability. ... The EEOC provides that a physical impairment is any physiological disorder or condition “affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Major life activities include “communicating, interacting with others, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1). The EEOC instructs that the term “major” shall not be interpreted strictly or create a demanding standard. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(2). ... Assuming as true plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, plaintiff alleges that (1) he suffers from a stutter; (2) he could perform his job but needed accommodations to better communicate with management, who knew about his disability; and (3) Home Depot did not provide accommodations and treated plaintiff differently due to his disability. ... The Court determines that plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is not futile and cures the defects that defendant identified in its pending motion to dismiss.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting a body system, including neurological conditions, within the definition of physical or mental impairment; essential tremors can qualify.

LeMarbe v. Village of Milford · filed 2021-10-26(h)(1)

The term “[p]hysical or mental impairment [includes] . . . [a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). The plaintiff’s diagnosed neurological affliction of essential tremors certainly qualifies as a “disorder” or “condition” that “affects” his neurological system. That much is not seriously disputed.

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical or mental impairments to include physiological disorders, cosmetic disfigurements, anatomical losses affecting body systems, and specified mental or psychological disorders.

Washburn v. Kingsborough Community College · filed 2023-03-29(h)

The EEOC also has promulgated regulations that expand upon the ADA’s definition of “disability.” ... Under these regulations, physical or mental impairments include: Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability (formerly termed “mental retardation”), organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (emphasis added). ... Here, Plaintiff fails to define gender dysphoria or identify any impairment that results from it or their gender confirming surgery. ... Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish a disability under subsection (A).

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical or mental impairment as a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, including the immune system.

Shane v. Bio-Techne Corporation · filed 2023-06-09(h)

The applicable definition lies in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h): “Physical or mental impairment means . . . any physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more body systems, such as . . . immune.” Thus, Dr. Shane must plausibly allege that Bio-Techne regarded him as having some physiological disorder or condition affecting his immune system.

Section 1630.2 treats mental illness as a physical or mental impairment and asks whether it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, considering the condition, manner, and duration of performance.

Scott v. Blossburg Borough · filed 2024-02-20(h), (4)(i)

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidelines provide that a physical or mental impairment includes “any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability . . . organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). ... An impairment is a disability within the meaning of this section if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section. Id. § 16320.2(j)(ii). ... as compared to most people in the general population, the condition under which the individual performs the major life activity; the manner in which the individual performs the major life activity; and/or the duration of time it takes the individual to perform the major life activity, or for which the individual can perform the major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(4)(i). ... Here, there is no evidence that Scott’s depression and anxiety substantially impaired any major life activity. ... Accordingly, Scott has not produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is actually disabled under the statute.

The regulation defines physical impairment broadly, recognizes walking, standing, and sitting as major life activities, and directs that the substantial-limitation and major-life-activity requirements be construed broadly in favor of coverage.

Lugones v. Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. · filed 2024-08-16(h)(1), (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)

Under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) a physical impairment is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Walking, standing, and sitting constitute major life activities under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i). “The ‘substantially limits’ and ‘major life activity’ requirements do not impose demanding standards and are to be construed broadly in favor of coverage.” Godbee v. Sam’s W., Inc., No. 21-60513-CIV, 2022 WL 2804843, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2022) (quoting 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(i)(2), 1630.2(j)(1)(i)). ... In any event, the Court ultimately determines that, despite the Report’s thorough explanation of the relevant legal standards and associated caselaw, it is more appropriate to permit the ADA claims to proceed to discovery rather than reach a conclusion about the disability question as a matter of law at the motion-to-dismiss stage. ... the SAC alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief under the ADA, even if only a tenuous one. ... Although Defendant raises compelling arguments about the limited severity and duration of Plaintiff’s injury given his expressed return-to-work date, there is sufficient factual content in the SAC to plausibly infer that Plaintiff suffered a physical impairment that substantially limited his ability to walk, stand, and work. Ultimate questions about duration and severity are better suited for summary judgment.

An episodic impairment is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active, even if each episode is brief.

Hargett v. Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees · filed 2016-11-08(j)(1)(vii)

However, the current iteration of the regulations states that “[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(vii) (emphasis added). As discussed, Hargett’s seizures may limit a major life activity when active. Accordingly, FAU has not demonstrated that Hargett cannot prove she is disabled.

The effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can still be substantially limiting, and episodic acute exacerbations may qualify when they substantially interfere with a major life activity.

Chaniott v. DCI Donor Services, Inc. · filed 2020-08-24(j)(1)(ix)

ADA regulations expressly provide that the “effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting” for purposes of proving an actual disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). It is therefore not necessarily sufficient for DCI to rely on the fact that Chaniott’s symptoms of anxiety were usually not disabling or had not been disabling before. Episodic, acute exacerbations of a symptom, if they interfere in a substantial life activity, can be enough to warrant consideration of an accommodation under the ADA.

An impairment can substantially limit a major life activity even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity, and episodic or remitting impairments can qualify as disabilities.

Norman v. NYU Langone Health System · filed 2020-09-30(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(vii)

“An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Of course, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that impairments that are either episodic or in remission can constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. ... Under EEOC regulations, impairments that are episodic or in remission may include, but are not limited to, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, hypertension, asthma, major depressive order, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(vii), app. Doubtless, some reactions to vaccines can be severe enough in intensity, duration, frequency, or after-effects to rise to the level of a disability under the ADA. But the Court emphasizes that, on this record, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff’s reactions to the flu vaccine, at the time she requested an accommodation, meet the definition of a disability.

An impairment that is episodic or in remission qualifies as a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

Dyson · filed 2026-03-20(j)(vii)

An “impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(vii).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(iii) favors a broad reading of “substantially limits” and directs attention to compliance and discrimination, while § 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an open, interactive employer-employee process to identify limitations and possible accommodations.

Brady v. Board of Education · filed 2016-12-07(j)(1)(iii); (o)(3)

Regulations implementing the ADAAA advise broad construction of the ‘substantially limits’ phrasing in the statute, noting that “[t]he primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(iii). ... Therefore, the Court finds that the doctor’s notes submitted by Brady provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude that Brady was disabled. ... Upon receiving Plaintiff’s formal request. Defendant engaged Plaintiff in precisely the sort of interactive process contemplated by the ADA. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (“The ADA contemplates an open, interactive process between the employer and employee to ‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome the limitations.’”).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) does not require an employer to initiate an interactive process for reasonable accommodation in every case, although the regulation recognizes some employer responsibility for determining the necessary accommodation.

Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc. · filed 1996-09-19(o)(3)

The regulations’ use of “may” clearly suggests that Congress, while it could have imposed an affirmative obligation upon employers in all cases, chose not to.

The regulation requires an informal, interactive process to identify the limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations, with both parties sharing responsibility for determining the necessary accommodation.

Sieberns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1996-11-25(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... Under the facts of this case, liability for any lack of interactive process after Wal-Mart told Sieberns it could not hire him lies with Sieberns himself. Nowhere in the cases or the federal regulations does the law place the entire burden of seeking a reasonable accommodation upon the employer, which is what Sieberns’ argument effectively does. ... On the contrary, the law is clear thát the interactive process is supposed to be “ ‘a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability.’” ... However, “both parties bear responsibility for determining what accommodation is necessary.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Salmon v. West Clark Community Schools · filed 1999-08-24(o)(3)

As our circuit has noted, the ADA’s “reasonable accommodation” element imposes a duty upon employers to engage in a flexible, interactive process with the disabled employee needing accommodation so that, together, they might identify the employee’s precise limitations and discuss accommodations that might enable the employee to continue working. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says an employer may need to start an informal interactive process to identify a disabled employee's limitations and possible reasonable accommodations; the court read “may be necessary” as permissive and not as creating independent liability for failing to conduct that process.

Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc. · filed 1999-10-28(o)(3)

Barnett argues that an employee's first request for accommodation triggers the employer's duty to initiate an "interactive process." The regulations, however, state only that an interactive process "may be necessary." S 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis added). The regulations do not state that it is necessary. We interpret this as permissive language which also serves as a warning to employers that a failure to engage in an interactive process might expose them to liability for failing to make reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer, when necessary, to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee with a disability to identify the employee's limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America · filed 1999-08-25(o)(3)

Once Fjellestad made this request, Pizza Hut was required to initiate an interactive process with Fjellestad to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and reasonable accommodation options, but the employer has no duty to engage in it absent notice that the employee seeks accommodation.

Neil E. JONES Robert E. Jones, Appellant v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE · filed 2000-06-02(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations provide that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The goal of the interactive process is to help identify the precise limitations of the employee’s disability and the potential options that could reasonably accommodate those limitations. ... The record reflects that the only request made by Jones of UPS was for continued payment of disability benefits. Because there is no evidence from which a request for accommodation could be inferred, UPS was under no legal obligation to engage in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process, but a plaintiff must show that a failure in that process resulted in failure to identify an appropriate accommodation.

Rehling v. The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation · filed 2000-03-21(o)(3)

Based on our understanding of the interactive process requirement, we hold that a plaintiff must allege that the employer’s failure to engage in an interactive process resulted in a failure to identify an appropriate accommodation for the qualified individual.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that the employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual to identify the disability's precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Swanson v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2000-06-15(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

The interactive process contemplated by § 1630.2(o)(3) requires participation by both parties, but an employee must show that failure to engage in it caused the failure to identify an appropriate accommodation.

Walter v. United Airlines, Inc · filed 2000-10-25(o)(3)

Once an employer’s responsibility to provide a reasonable accommodation is triggered, it may be necessary for the employer to engage in an "interactive process" to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances. See id. at 1135; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The Federal Regulations envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties: [T]he employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. The appropriate accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability. 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. However, an employee cannot base a reasonable accommodation claim solely on the allegation that the employer failed to engage in an interactive process. See Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000). Rather, the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process resulted in the failure to identify an appropriate accommodation for the disabled employee. See id.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Ozlowski v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General · filed 2001-01-17(o)(3)

The ADA regulations also state that, to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer may need to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); ... However, the failure to engage in the interactive process by itself does not give rise to relief. ... Instead, we must first look at whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the availability of a vacant position to accommodate Ozlowski.

The reasonable-accommodation process may require the employer and employee to engage in an interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation.

Petty v. Freightliner Corp. · filed 2000-11-28(o)(3)

Here, Freightliner correctly engaged Plaintiff in an “interactive process” to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation, but the employer's duty to engage in it is generally triggered by a sufficiently direct and specific accommodation request.

Reed v. Lepage Bakeries, Inc. · filed 2001-04-05(o)(3)

Reed argues as well that LePage failed to engage in an interactive process, which, according to EEOC regulations, "may be necessary" in order to determine an appropriate accommodation for an employee. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); see also Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96 F.3d 506, 515 (1st Cir. 1996). This claim fails for the same reasons as articulated above: the employer's duty to enter into an interactive process typically must be triggered by a sufficient request for accommodation, as with the employer's more general duty to accommodate. See EEOC Guidance, supra, at 405:7605.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to identify an employee's disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2001-04-06(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be necessary for the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... Indeed, there remains a dispute as to whether a good faith interactive process was accomplished at any point after August 1996 and before June 1997, if and when such a responsibility attached. ... In conclusion, the Court finds that significant factual disputes remain with respect to whether Defendant FedEx met its obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation so that Mr. Hummel could return to work, and in doing so engaged in a flexible, interactive process with its employee, such that its responsibilities under the ADA were satisfied.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process between the covered entity and employee to identify the disability's precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Thompson v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. · filed 2001-05-21(o)(3)

Both the governing EEOC regulations and the courts recognize that the ADA contemplates an “interactive process,” through which both the employer and the employee seek to identify a reasonable accommodation of the employee’s disability.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that a covered entity may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Michael Nicosia, Intervening v. Yellow Freight System, Inc. · filed 2001-06-12(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee.

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. · filed 2001-08-23(o)(3)

As the federal regulations implementing the duty of reasonable accommodation in the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq.) make clear, "[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process" with the disabled employee. ... Thus, reasonable accommodation is often an ongoing process rather than a single action.

Subsection (o)(3) requires an employer, when necessary, to engage in an informal interactive process to identify the employee's disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations; an employee who impedes that process cannot claim that the employer failed to accommodate.

Williams v. Prison Health Services, Inc. · filed 2001-07-19(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... Despite plaintiffs assertions, the court finds that it was plaintiff who impeded the interactive process. ... Delay in returning to work is insufficient when the employer is engaged in a good faith interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the employer and employee identify the employee's limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, with both parties making reasonable, good-faith efforts.

Mengine v. Runyon · filed 1997-06-11(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... We agree that both parties have a duty to assist in the search for appropriate reasonable accommodation and to act in good faith.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) treats determining a reasonable accommodation as an informal, interactive process.

Krocka v. Bransfield · filed 1997-06-24(o)(3)

Determining the proper reasonable accommodation is supposed to be an “informal, interactive process.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc. · filed 1998-03-13(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

When an employer's duty to provide reasonable accommodation is triggered, § 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate accommodation.

Haschmann v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Doing Business as Cablevision New York · filed 1998-07-29(o)(3)

Under the ADA, “[o]nee an employer’s responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation is triggered, the employer must engage with the employee in an ‘interactive process’ to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances.” ... see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9. The record does not reflect any interaction; the only reciprocal response by Time Warner was a termination notice. We believe there certainly was a reasonable basis in the record for the jury’s verdict on this issue.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes initiating an informal interactive process potentially necessary to identify a disabled employee’s limitations and possible reasonable accommodations, but does not itself impose independent liability for failing to hold such discussions.

Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc. · filed 1998-10-06(o)(3)

The regulations, however, state only that an interactive process "may be necessary." § 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis added). The regulations do not state that it is necessary. We interpret this as permissive language which also serves as a warning to employers that a failure to engage in an interactive process might expose them to liability for failing to make reasonable accommodation. As the appendix notes, the employer "must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation." Pt. 1630 app. § 1630.9. This statement means that the employer will be liable for discrimination if a reasonable accommodation was available, but the employer did not act upon it. The ADA and its regulations do not, however, create independent liability for the employer for failing to engage in ritualized discussions with the employee to find a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal, interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, which may require the employer to initiate the process.

Taylor v. Phoenixville School District · filed 1999-04-05(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations state that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

The regulation recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation and requires an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations.

Dayoub v. Penn-Del Directory Co. · filed 1999-05-11(o)(2)(ii), (o)(3)

The EEOC Regulations provide that a “reasonable accommodation may include ... reassignment to a vacant position....” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). ... The ADA’s regulations state that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... The employer’s obligations under the interactive process are triggered once the employer is given notice of the disability and the employee requests accommodation. ... Penn-Del therefore had an obligation to act in good faith to search for an appropriate reasonable accommodation. ... Here, in contrast, the requested accommodation is not unreasonable. Dayoub's request that he be temporarily reassigned until he is able to resume the duties of his former position is well within the range reasonable accommodations which an employer must consider. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (reasonable accommodation may include reassignment to a vacant position).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations.

Donahue v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 1999-06-10(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations state that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes the accommodation dialogue an informal, case-specific interactive process and does not require a complete proposal immediately when the need is not imminent.

Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc. · filed 1999-06-16(o)(3)

The regulation’s direction to the parties to engage in an interactive process is not an end it itself—it is a means to the end of forging reasonable accommodations. ... The process must thus be viewed on a case-by-case basis. ... Under the circumstances of this case, where the employee would not be faced with the problematic job duties immediately, Akzo was under no obligation to make a formal presentation to Loulseged at the time of the initial tender of the one-gallon proposal. Nothing in the regulations or the cases indicates to us that an employer must move with maximum speed to complete this process and preempt any possible concerns. Instead, we believe that in an informal process the employer is entitled to move at whatever pace he chooses as long as the ultimate problem—the employee’s performance of her duties—is not truly imminent.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the employer and employee identify the disability’s precise limitations and possible accommodations, and a request for accommodation triggers that process.

Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America · filed 1999-06-16(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations state that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). (emphasis added). ... We tend to agree with those courts that hold that there is no per se liability under the ADA if an employer fails to engage in an interactive process. However, we feel the interpretive guidelines set forth when it is “necessary” for an employer to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee in need of accommodation. The guidelines set forth the predicate requirement that when the disabled individual requests accommodation, it becomes necessary to initiate the interactive process. Although an employer will not be held liable under the ADA for failing to engage in an interactive process if no reasonable accommodation was possible, we find that for purposes of summary judgment, the failure of an employer to engage in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations are possible is prima facie evidence that the employer may be acting in bad faith. Under these circumstances, we feel a factual question exists as to whether the employer has attempted to provide reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal, interactive process between the employer and employee to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Ballard v. Rubin · filed 2002-03-29(o)(3)

This Court observed in Fjellestad, where the employee truly and affirmatively requested accommodation, that the scope of the employer’s obligation in this regard is determined through an “‘informal, interactive process’” between the employer and the employee, identifying the limitations arising from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

When assessing a disabled employee's potential accommodation, an employer may in some circumstances have to initiate an informal interactive process with the qualified individual.

Fallar v. Compuware Corp. · filed 2002-03-30(o)(3)

Assessing the potential accommodation of a disabled employee may, in certain circumstances, require the employer to initiate “an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informed, interactive process to identify an employee’s limitations and possible reasonable accommodations, and that process is triggered when an employer regards an employee seeking accommodation as disabled.

Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc. · filed 2002-05-06(o)(3)

It is at once apparent that the employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process is certainly triggered once the employer regards an employee who has requested an accommodation as being disabled.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

No. 01-3212 · filed 2002-05-29(o)(3)

A regulation issued pursuant to the ADA, however, states that, "[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for [the employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with [the employee] in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( o )(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to initiate an informal interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations addressing an employee's disability-related limitations.

Tynan v. VICINAGE 13 OF SUPERIOR CT. · filed 2002-05-31(o)(3)

To determine what appropriate accommodation is necessary, the employer must initiate an informal interactive process with the employee. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3). This process must identify the potential reasonable accommodations that could be adopted to overcome the employee's precise limitations resulting from the disability. Ibid.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the interactive accommodation process to identify the disability’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations to overcome them.

Kennelly v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 2002-06-16(o)(3)

The regulations provide that the interactive process “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates a consultative process to identify a reasonable accommodation; failure to consult shifts only the burden of production on the accommodation’s availability to the employer, while the employee must still show that a reasonable accommodation existed.

Mays v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs · filed 2002-09-05(o)(3)

The interpretation that we have offered of the burden-shifting consequence of the employer’s failure to engage in a consultative process with a disabled employee reconciles our cases with one another and also brings us into harmony with the cases from the other circuits (all but the Ninth) that say that the burden of showing that a reasonable accommodation existed remains on the employee.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer and a disabled employee to participate in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation, with the employer bearing the burden of exploring accommodation possibilities in good faith.

McRae v. Potter · filed 2002-09-11(o)(3)

... The employer bears the burden of exploring with a disabled employee the possibility of a reasonable accommodation through this interactive process. ... But the Postal Service did interact with McRae in good faith: Raymond contacted the Northern Illinois district office for a list of post offices with vacant clerk positions, and he allowed McRae to phone these post offices while on duty. McRae does not explain how Raymond could have provided more assistance.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires employers and employees to engage in an interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and appropriate, feasible accommodations.

Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc. · filed 2002-10-07(o)(3)

The ADA requires that employers and employees engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations resulting from a disability and the kinds of accommodation which would be both appropriate and feasible. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) supports an employer's obligation to initiate an informal interactive process to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Canteen Corp. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · filed 2003-01-02(o)(3)

Under those regulations, to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to ascertain the most reasonable solution. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

The regulation calls for an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Picinich v. United Parcel Service · filed 2004-06-15(d)(3)

The ADA envisions that employees and employers will work together in “an informal, interactive process ... [which] should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as an informal, flexible exchange through which the employer and employee identify the employee’s limitations and possible accommodations; the process is triggered by the employee’s request for an accommodation.

Kratzer v. Collins · filed 2005-02-22(o)(3)

The interactive process is informal and flexible, enabling both employer and employee to identify the employee's limitations and accommodations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). If the employee needs an accommodation, the employer must engage in an interactive process. ... The "predicate requirement" triggering the interactive process is the employee's request for the accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation through a flexible, interactive process involving both the employer and the employee with a disability.

Pantazes v. Jackson · filed 2005-03-31(o)(3)

“the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. The appropriate accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Vendetta Jackson v. City of Chicago · filed 2005-07-12(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified employee to identify the disability’s precise limitations and potential accommodations.

Breitfelder v. Leis · filed 2005-10-07(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

The regulation contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process with a qualified employee to identify the employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Denczak v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2005-12-14(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... While this is not entirely clear, it is evident that plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to propose a specific accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Kleiber v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc. · filed 2006-02-27(o)(3)

The ADA regulations state that to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer may need to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining the appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the covered entity to initiate an informal interactive process to identify the employee's precise limitations and potential accommodations.

Freadman v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2007-04-18(o)(3)

The federal regulations implementing the equal employment provisions of the ADA state: To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Here, there was an informal process. But Freadman failed to be sufficiently specific, and Metropolitan granted the request it thought had been made.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to identify the employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Kleiber v. Honda of America · filed 2007-05-03(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations indicate that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The purpose of this process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. Accordingly, “[t]he interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to initiate an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations and possible accommodations.

Leonard v. Uhlich Children's Advantage Network · filed 2007-04-12(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires employers and employees to engage in an interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and appropriate, feasible accommodations.

Hodson v. Alpine Manor, Inc. · filed 2007-05-21(o)(3)

The ADA requires that employers and employees engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations resulting from a disability and the kinds of accommodation which would be both appropriate and feasible. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the employer and qualified individual identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Chapman v. UPMC Health System · filed 2007-09-25(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes the parties’ good-faith participation in an interactive process relevant to determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Benaugh v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission · filed 2008-05-16(o)(3)

Finally, the jury also could consider whether the OCRC failed to participate, in good faith, in an “interactive process” for determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); see also Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 871-72 (6th Cir. 2007); Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529, 536 (6th Cir. 2004).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, and the court treated that process as mandatory.

Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 2008-05-23(o)(3)

The ADA's regulations indicate that, "[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). "Even though the interactive process is not described in the statute's text, the interactive process is mandatory, and both parties have a duty to participate in good faith."

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify the precise limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations.

Victor v. State · filed 2008-07-24(o)(3)

Additionally, the ADA's regulations state: "To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] with a disability to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This court has adopted this interactive process when analyzing "what appropriate accommodation is necessary" in a specific circumstance.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and qualified employee to identify the disability-related limitations and discuss potential reasonable accommodations through an interactive process.

Lafata v. Church of Christ Home for the · filed 2009-05-20(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate modification or adjustment necessary to accommodate the employee, the ADA’s regulations indicate that “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... By offering Plaintiff only one option with respect to the position despite knowing of her physical limitations, Defendant failed to discuss with Plaintiff the “potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome [her] limitations.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); cf. Barnett, 228 F.3d at 1116 (holding that an employer cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage if there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer engaged in good faith in the interactive process”).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an informal interactive process with an employee requesting accommodation to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Donnelly v. St. John's Mercy Medical Center · filed 2009-06-19(o)(3)

"Where the employee requests accommodation, the employer must engage in an `informal, interactive process' with the employee to identify the limitations caused by the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations to overcome those limitations."

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an informal interactive process may be necessary to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, but an employer need not engage in that process when the employee has not identified a reasonable accommodation.

Webb v. Donley · filed 2009-09-14(o)(3)

In order to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, an informal, interactive process with the disabled individual may be necessary. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis added). However, if the employee does not identify a reasonable accommodation, the employer does not have to enter into an interactive dialogue or show undue hardship.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to make a reasonable effort to determine an appropriate accommodation through a flexible, interactive process involving good-faith efforts by both sides.

Woodruff v. Mineta · filed 2011-03-29(o)(3)

Once the employer knows of the disability and the employee’s desire for accommodations, “it makes sense to place the burden on the employer to request additional information that the employer believes it needs.” Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d at 315; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (stating that the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation). Determining an appropriate accommodation, however, requires a flexible, interactive process that involves a good faith effort on behalf of both the employer and the disabled employee. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); see also Pantazes v. Jackson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 57, 70 (D.D.C. 2005).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) treats an interactive process as potentially necessary to identify an appropriate accommodation, while § 1630.2(p)(2)(v) makes the effect on other employees’ ability to perform their duties relevant to the accommodation’s reasonableness.

Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education · filed 2011-04-20(o)(3), (p)(2)(v)

Once an employer’s responsibility to provide a reasonable accommodation is triggered, it may be necessary for the employer to engage in an “interactive process” to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Rather, the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process resulted in the failure to identify an appropriate accommodation for the disabled employee. ... Here, the district court correctly concluded that the ADA does not require an employer to reallocate essential job functions or assign an employee “permanent light duty”. ... In particular, reducing Crabill’s caseload would have shifted her duties to other counselors in the department, thereby increasing their workload. ... See also Rehrs v. Iams Co., 486 F.3d 353, 357 (8th Cir. 2007); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v) (impact to other employees on their ability to perform their duties is a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of an accommodation).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, but the employer’s duty to participate is triggered only after an adequate request puts it on notice of the need for accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. C.R. England, Inc. · filed 2011-05-03(o)(3)

“To facilitate the reasonable accommodation, ‘[t]he federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.’” Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1998)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). However, before an employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations—or even to participate in the “interactive process”—is triggered under the ADA, the employee must make an adequate request, thereby putting the employer on notice.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says that determining a reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal interactive process identifying the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential accommodations.

STADTMILLER v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2011-06-29(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3).

The regulation contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the covered entity and the employee identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Williamson v. Clarke County Department of Human Resources · filed 2011-07-08(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. The process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

The regulation makes the interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation potentially necessary, but does not impose an affirmative duty to initiate it in every case; the process is informal and context-specific.

Furtado v. Standard Parking Corp. · filed 2011-10-27(o)(3)

The ADA's regulations note that “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3). ... The employer's burden, however, is not as onerous as Furtado suggests. The regulations' use of 'may' demonstrates that Congress could have imposed an affirmative obligation upon employers in all cases but chose not to. ... In addition to being advisory as opposed to mandatory, the interactive process envisioned is informal and highly context-specific.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes an interactive, open, and ongoing dialogue between employer and employee a necessary part of identifying disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Brown v. Potter · filed 2011-11-03(o)(3)

A necessary component of reasonable accommodation is an interactive, open, and ongoing process of dialogue between the employer and employee to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 535 U.S. 391 (2002); Humphrey v. Memorial Hosps. Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2001); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify an employee's precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, but it does not require an employer to pursue a more demanding process when the employee cannot perform the essential functions even with accommodation.

Jones v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2012-05-10(o)(3)

This claim is grounded in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), which prescribes: "To determine [] appropriate reasonable accommodation[s] it may be necessary for [an employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process . . . [to] identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." ... We find that this ancillary claim similarly fails and hold that the district court correctly concluded that Walgreens was not under a legally-imposed obligation to go further than it did or engage in a more demanding interactive process to accommodate Jones.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process in which, after an employee communicates a disability and requests an accommodation, the employer explores the possibility of a reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability.

Teague v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital · filed 2012-08-23(o)(3)

The federal regulations implementing the ADA contemplate an interactive process between employer and employee in order to determine the appropriate accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(S). After the employee has communicated his disability and asked for an accommodation so that she can continue working, “the employer has the burden of exploring with the worker the possibility of a reasonable accommodation.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that employers and employees may need an interactive process to identify and implement a workable reasonable accommodation.

Schmidt v. Solis · filed 2012-09-18(o)(3)

“Employers and employees may need to engage in an ‘interactive process’ in order to identify and implement a workable accommodation.” Mogenhan, 613 F.3d at 1167; Id. at n.4 (citing 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3)); (quoting and citing, among other authorities, Mayers v. Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of N. Am., 478 F.3d 364, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The interactive process requires that employers “make a good-faith effort to seek accommodations.” Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 317 (3rd Cir. 1999).

When needed to determine a reasonable accommodation, an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process identifying the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Faison v. Vance-Cooks · filed 2012-10-09(o)(3)

Once an employer knows of the disability and the employee’s desire for accommodation, it is incumbent on the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. ... In order to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer may need to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of accommodation,” which “process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3). ... Here, the GPO has failed to show that its efforts to engage in the interactive process and accommodate Faison’s disabilities were sufficient as a matter of law.

Section 1630.2 recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require a covered entity to initiate an informal interactive process with the qualified individual, including exchanging information about the disability and needed accommodations.

Zito v. Donahoe · filed 2012-12-20

An employee’s request for accommodation of a disability “triggers a duty on the part of the employer to investigate that request and determine its feasibility.” ... The ADA envisions that this duty will be discharged by an “ ‘interactive process’ by which employers and employees work together to assess whether an employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated.” ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.”). ... As a part of the interactive process, the USPS was entitled to request that Zito provide documentation of his disability and the appropriate accommodations for that disability. ... Zito’s failure to respond to USPS’s requests clearly constitutes bad faith participation, if it can be called participation at all, in the interactive process for determining the appropriate accommodations. ... Thus, the USPS cannot be held liable for denying Zito a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) advises an employer to initiate an informal interactive process to determine whether an individual with a disability needs an accommodation, but that process does not apply to deciding whether the employee is disabled in the first instance.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2013-01-09(o)(3)

Although the ADA does advise an employer to initiate "an informal, interactive process" when determining whether an individual with a disability needs an accommodation, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), no such counsel applies to the determination of whether an employee is disabled in the first instance.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employee and employer to engage in an interactive process to identify the disability's precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Noel v. BNY-Mellon Corp. · filed 2013-03-14(o)(3)

The federal regulations implementing the ADA require that both the employee and the employer engage in an “interactive process” to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Subsection (o)(3) calls for an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, but liability requires a possible accommodation that would enable the essential functions of the job.

Wilson v. Dollar General Corporation · filed 2013-05-17(o)(3)

The duty to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation is generally triggered when an employee communicates to his employer his disability and his desire for an accommodation for that disability. ... But the interactive process "is not an end in itself; rather it is a means for determining what reasonable accommodations are available to allow a disabled individual to perform the essential job functions of the position sought." ... For example, an employer who fails to engage in the interactive process will not be held liable if the employee cannot identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been possible. ... Therefore, Dollar General cannot be held liable for a failure to engage in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process involving good-faith communication with the employee.

Eagle v. Hurley Medical Center · filed 2013-06-27(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations indicate that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3). This process requires good faith communication between the parties to exploi’e possible accommodations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to make a reasonable effort to determine an appropriate accommodation through a flexible, interactive process with the employee, but failure to engage in that process alone does not establish liability; the employee must also show that a reasonable accommodation was available.

Floyd v. Office of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee · filed 2013-09-30(o)(3)

“the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. The appropriate accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability.” ... Ms. Floyd cannot prevail on her failure-to-accommodate claim by showing that the office of Rep. Jackson Lee refused to engage in the interactive process mandated by regulation. Instead, Ms. Floyd must establish that a reasonable accommodation would have allowed her to perform the essential functions of her job.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that a covered entity may need to initiate an informal interactive process to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, and the employee must make an adequate request that puts the employer on notice before that duty is triggered.

Dinse v. Carlisle Foodservice Products Inc. · filed 2013-11-06(o)(3)

“To facilitate the reasonable accommodation, ‘[t]he federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.’ C.R. England, 644 F.3d at 1049 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 374 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 2004)); cf. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.”). ... More is required to trigger an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process than mere awareness that the employee is disabled; specifically, the employee must make an adequate request for a reasonable accommodation for the disability.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp. · filed 2014-04-14(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations indicate that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for an employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee.

Marilee Brown v. Department of the Interior · filed 2014-06-04(o)(3)

The record shows that the appellant’s continual rejection of the agency’s offers to provide her with lower-graded positions was obstructive, not interactive. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (o)(3) (to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, an agency may need to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation”) (emphasis added); Appendix to 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, § 1630.9 (“The appropriate reasonable accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the individual with a disability.”) Courts have generally required the parties to engage in this process in good faith.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify the precise limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations to overcome them.

Ella Ward v. McDonald · filed 2014-08-12(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [agency] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... By asking these questions, the BVA sought—as EEOC regulations instruct—to know the “precise limitations resulting from the disability” so that it could determine “potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) directs that, after an employee requests an accommodation, the employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process, but that process is a means to obtaining a reasonable accommodation rather than an end in itself.

Silva v. City of Hidalgo, Texas · filed 2014-07-17(o)(3)

[T]he regulation’s direction to the parties to engage in an interactive process is not an end in itself — it is a means to the end of forging reasonable accommodations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Meyer v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2014-11-17(o)(3)

The applicable regulation suggests that to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation “it may be necessary for [the employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). In applying this regulation, we have stated that “[l]iability simply cannot arise under the ADA when an employer does not obstruct an informal interactive process; makes reasonable efforts to communicate with the employee and provide accommodations based on the information it possesses; and the employee’s actions cause a breakdown in the interactive process.” Stewart, 117 F.3d at 1287. Bernal did not obstruct the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the interactive process to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations.

Aki v. University of California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · filed 2014-11-25(o)(3)

Because a reasonable jury could conclude that LBNL failed to adequately engage with Plaintiff in “identify[ing] the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(006F)(3), the Court cannot conclude that LBNL participated in the interactive process in good faith as a matter of law.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Bellerose v. SAU #39 · filed 2014-12-29(o)(3)

The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate an employee’s known disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). To determine whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable, federal regulations note that “it may be necessary for [an employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process with an employee seeking disability accommodation to determine an appropriate accommodation.

Kauffman v. Petersen Health Care VII, LLC · filed 2014-10-16(o)(3)

A further problem with the district judge’s decision is his ignoring the requirement that when an employee asks for an accommodation because of a disability, “the employer must engage with the employee in an ‘interactive process’ to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances.” Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560, 563 (7th Cir. 1996); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Basden v. Professional Transportation, Inc., 714 F.3d 1034, 1038–39 (7th Cir. 2013); Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1112–16 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).

Section 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes a modified or part-time work schedule as a reasonable accommodation, § 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an employer-employee discussion of potential accommodations, and § 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army · filed 2015-02-13(o)(2)(ii), (o)(3), (r)

see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B) (a modified or part-time work schedule is a type of reasonable accommodation); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (same). ... We find that the agency’s request was entirely reasonable and is the sort of exchange that is supposed to occur during the interactive process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (indicating that it may be necessary for an agency to initiate a discussion with the employee regarding potential reasonable accommodations). ... A direct threat is a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health of safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). We find that the agency was justified, under both of these theories, to require further medical documentation from the appellant before returning him to duty.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Easter v. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc. · filed 2015-03-06(o)(3)

The governing regulations indicate that “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee],” in order to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to use an informal interactive process with an employee to identify limitations and possible accommodations.

Medearis v. CVS Pharmacy · filed 2015-03-12(o)(3)

An employer may need “to initiate an informal, interactive process” with the employee to identify his limitations and possible accommodations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3). However, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of identifying a reasonable accommodation that would allow a qualified individual to perform the job, and an employer is not required to accommodate an employee in any manner in which the employee desires.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) advises an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process when determining whether an individual with a disability needs an accommodation, but that process does not apply to deciding whether the employee is disabled in the first instance.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2015-04-10(o)(3)

Although the ADA does advise an employer to initiate "an informal, interactive process" when determining whether an individual with a disability needs an accommodation, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), no such counsel applies to the determination of whether an employee is disabled in the first instance.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations, with both parties participating in good faith.

LaShaunna Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp. · filed 2015-05-06(o)(3)

The KCRA looks to the ADA’s regulations, which provide that “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This process is used to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. Though the interactive process is not described in the text of the ADA itself, it is mandatory, and both parties are obligated to participate in good faith.

Section 1630.2(j)(l)(i) requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, while § 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process when an accommodation is requested.

Lenkiewicz v. Donovan · filed 2015-07-31(o)(3); (j)(l)(i)

In light of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, “[t]he term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i). ... When an employee requests an accommodation, HUD must “initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified‘individual with a disability in need of accommodation.” 29 ' C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

The regulation explains that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Kahriman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2015-07-14(o)(3)

The scope of the interactive process required is hot defined in detail by the statutes, regulations, or case law, but is generally understood to mean that at a minimum, the employer must engage in an informal conversation with the employee to uncover “potential reasonable accommodations” that could address’ the employee’s needs. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3) (“This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to identify the precise limitations resulting from an employee’s disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

J.R. Reviello, Jr. v. UCBR · filed 2015-07-31(o)(3)

An employer must “identify the precise limitations resulting from the [employee’s] disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3). ... Although Employer attempted to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the [Claimant’s] disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations,” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3), Claimant did not engage in this interactive process.

The regulation requires an employer and an employee requesting accommodation to engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Porfiri v. Moure-Eraso · filed 2015-08-17(o)(3)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations require employers to engage in an “interactive process” with an employee who requests accommodation in order to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). “The process contemplated is a flexible give-and-take between employer and employee so that together they can determine what accommodation would enable the employee to continue working.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes the employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process about reasonable accommodation arise when the employee requests accommodation for a disability.

Belasco v. Warrensville Heights City School · filed 2015-12-11(o)(3)

Belasco also contends that defendants failed to engage in the interactive process to discuss reasonable accommodations for her alleged disability. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). Because Belasco did not request accommodation of a disability in fall 2011—she did not do so until her Loudermill hearing in April 2012—the District’s duty to engage in the interactive process was not triggered until April 2012.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process between the employee and employer to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, but failure to engage in that process alone does not establish liability.

Wood v. City of Barre · filed 2016-02-09(o)(3)

Sometimes, the employee and the employer must engage in an “informal, interactive process,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), to determine an appropriate accommodation. The failure to engage in that process, however, does not establish liability.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in a good-faith informal interactive process to determine what reasonable accommodation is needed.

Lenkiewicz v. Donovan · filed 2015-11-30(o)(3)

In contrast to Lenkiewicz, HUD failed to engage in good faith in the informal, interactive process outlined in the EEOC’s regulations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) explains that determining a reasonable accommodation may require a covered entity to begin an informal interactive process with the qualified individual to identify the disability's limitations and possible accommodations.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2016-01-25(o)(3)

‘[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’ 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... The law imposes affirmative obligations on employers to engage in interactive processes as they make reasonable accommodations for otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal interactive process with the employee.

Farha v. Cogent Healthcare of Michigan, P.C. · filed 2016-02-29(o)(3)

The Department of Labor’s regulations implementing the ADA state that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Hodges v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-03-28(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... In sum, to establish that his request for an accommodation was “denied,” Plaintiff must show that OIG either refused to engage in the interactive process, participated in the interactive process in bad faith, or ended the interactive process. See id.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the employer and employee participate to identify an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Chavez v. Adams County School District No. 50 · filed 2016-03-31(o)(3)

To facilitate the reasonable accommodation, the federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes an informal interactive process for identifying an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Nebeker v. National Auto Plaza · filed 2016-04-01(o)(3)

The federal regulations implementing the ADA describe an “informal, interactive process” through which the employer and employee “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” ... “[B]efore an employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations—or even to participate in the ‘interactive process’—is triggered under the ADA, the employee must make an adequate request, thereby putting the employer on notice.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an agency may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify an individual's disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Ali v. McCarthy · filed 2016-04-12(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [agency] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Geter v. Government Printing Office · filed 2016-06-23(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, while § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) requires an accommodation to enable performance of essential job functions or equal employment benefits and privileges.

Durick v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2016-08-17(o)(3); (o)(l)(ii)

The statutory scheme under the ADA contemplates an interactive process by which the employee and employer may “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); ... That evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the parking space she currently had was effective, Le., that it allowed her to “perform the essential functions of [her] position ... [or] enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii)-(iii).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) treats the reasonable-accommodation process as a flexible exchange in which the employer and employee determine what accommodation would enable the employee to keep working.

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-09-14(o)(3)

The ADA “does not provide a comprehensive definition of ‘reasonable accommodation,’ but it gives examples of what the term “may include.” ... The ADA contemplates a “flexible give-and-take between employer and employee so that together they can determine what accommodation would enable the employee to continue working.” Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations call this the “interactive process.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an agency to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Pauling v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2017-12-29(o)(3)

"initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation."

Section 1630.2(o)(3) treats the qualified-individual determination as distinct from the covered entity's obligation to engage in an informal, interactive process to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Mbawe v. Ferris State Univ. · filed 2018-01-10(o)(3)

Indeed, a plain reading of the relevant regulation makes clear that whether a plaintiff is a qualified individual is distinct from a defendant's obligation to engage in the interactive process. ... ADA regulations state that "[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation."

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process in which employers and employees work together to assess whether a disability can be reasonably accommodated, but failure to engage in that process alone is not an independent ADA violation.

Williams v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene · filed 2018-03-12(o)(3)

Significantly, "[t]he ADA envisions an 'interactive process' by which employers and employees work together to assess whether an employee's disability can be reasonably accommodated." ... The mere failure to engage in the interactive process is not, however, an "independent violation of the ADA." ... Instead, a court must follow "a two-step process to evaluate whether the failure to provide a proposed accommodation constitutes a violation of the ADA. First, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that an accommodation exists that permits her to perform the job's essential functions. If the plaintiff meets that burden, the analysis shifts to the question whether the proposed accommodations is reasonable; on this question the burden of persuasion lies with the defendant." ... Critically, if an employee "cannot show that a reasonable accommodation existed at the time of his [or her] dismissal," the employee cannot recover.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee.

McDonald v. UAW-GM Center for Human Resources · filed 2018-06-21(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal, interactive process to assess an employee’s disability-related limitations and possible accommodations.

Jiles v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc. · filed 2018-03-13(o)(3)

To decide what reasonable accommodations will be implemented, the entity should engage in an informal, interactive process with the individual to assess the limitations caused by the individual's disability and the possible accommodations that would overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) directs an employer to explore an employee’s limitations, how they affect work, and possible accommodations after the employee requests a reasonable accommodation.

Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2018-08-07(o)(3)

Once Atkins requested this reasonable accommodation, the employer had a duty to explore the nature of the employee’s limitations, if and how those limitations affected her work, and what types of accommodations could be made. See Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). Had Dollar General followed this route, it might well have told Atkins that she could consume glucose pills at the register and perhaps that would have resolved the matter. But that’s not what it did. The store manager categorically denied Atkins’ request, failed to explore any alternatives, and never relayed the matter to a superior. That was Dollar General’s problem, not Atkins’—or at least a reasonable jury could so conclude.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with an employee to determine an appropriate accommodation.

Jones v. American Access Casualty Company · filed 2018-08-07(o)(3)

However, “[w]hile the EEOC regulations accompanying the ADA do suggest that ‘it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee]’ to determine an appropriate accommodation, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis omitted), there is no separate cause of action for a failure of that interactive process.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an informal, interactive process to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, with both parties participating in good faith.

Brumley v. United Parcel Serv. · filed 2018-11-30(o)(3)

The ADA does not obligate employers to make on-the-spot accommodations of the employee’s choosing. Under the ADA, an employer must engage in an “informal, interactive process” with the employee to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). For employees seeking accommodations, “the interactive process is mandatory, and both parties have a duty to participate in good faith.” Id.; see also EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 570 F.3d 606, 621 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Once an employee makes such a request . . . the employer is obligated by law to engage in an interactive process: a meaningful dialogue with the employee to find the best means of accommodating th[e] disability.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Examples of how a party may fail to engage in the process in good faith include causing unnecessary delays or obstructing the process, as well as failing to adequately communicate or provide information during the process.

Subsection (o)(iii)(3) requires an employer to initiate the reasonable-accommodation interactive process when it knows or has reason to know that an employee has a disability and is experiencing workplace problems because of it.

Jackson v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2018-10-30(o)(iii)(3)

The employer, however, should initiate the reasonable accommodation interactive process if the employer knows or has reason to know that the employee has a disability and is experiencing workplace problems because of the disability.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Von Der Muhll Kostalas v. Pritzker · filed 2019-06-21(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] in need of accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Taylor, 184 F.3d at 311 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations through communication and good-faith exploration.

Kirilenko-Ison v. Danville Independent Schools · filed 2019-07-12(o)(3)

Parties are required to engage in an interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability. Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp., 15 F. Supp. 3d 681, 690 (E.D. Ky. 2014), aff’d, Banks, 610 F. App’x at 534; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). “The interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” Id. (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000)). An interactive process “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome these limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(iii)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says the interactive accommodation process should identify the precise limitations caused by the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome them.

Gonzalez v. United Parcel Service · filed 2019-07-31(o)(3)

Gonzalez’s final contention is based on process—he alleges he was denied an “interactive process” to discuss his disability and potential accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (“[The interactive] process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”). See also EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 570 F.3d 606, 622 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Under the ADA, once the employee presents a request for an accommodation, the employer is required to engage in the interactive process so that together they can determine what reasonable accommodations might be available.”) (citation omitted). But nothing in the record indicates that UPS, “instead of engaging in the interactive process that the ADA requires, simply refused to consider [Gonzalez’s] request for accommodation.” Chevron, 570 F.3d at 622. To the contrary, UPS informed Gonzalez about his ADA rights and solicited input from both Gonzalez and his doctor. It gathered information about Gonzalez’s medical limitations and his proposed accommodations. It held a meeting with Gonzalez about its conclusions, which Gonzalez did not protest at the time. And it continued to look for open positions for six months after that meeting.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process with an employee to identify the employee's disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

MOSLEY v. TARGET CORPORATION · filed 2019-08-20(o)(3)

The purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This step imposes a duty on employers to engage in a flexible give-and-take with the disabled employee so that together they can determine what accommodation would enable the employee to continue working.

The regulation defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions and provides that identifying the appropriate accommodation may require an informal interactive process addressing the disability’s limitations and potential accommodations.

Westbrooks v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2019-08-20(o)(1)(ii), (o)(3)

A reasonable accommodation is one that either “enable[s] [a qualified] individual with a disability … to perform the essential functions of [a] position,” or “enable[s] [an] employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by … other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)-(iii). The applicable federal regulations provide, in part: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The so called “interactive process” should “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires employers and employees to engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Masters v. Class Appraisal Inc · filed 2019-09-23(o)(3)

Regardless of whether an employer ultimately provides a requested accommodation, the ADA requires employer and employee to engage in an “interactive process” to explore possible accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007) (providing that interactive process is mandatory). “This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an employer to initiate an interactive process with an employee seeking reasonable accommodation, while requiring input from both sides.

Townsend v. Town of Brusly · filed 2019-11-08(o)(3)

EEOC regulations provide that an employer should initiate the interactive process, but the interactive process requires the input of the employee as well as the employer.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that a covered entity may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with an individual with a disability to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

McCoy v. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2019-12-04(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal, interactive process between the agency and a qualified employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Rhodes v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia · filed 2019-12-18(o)(3)

“To determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, the agency should ‘initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.’” Pauling v. District of Columbia, 286 F. Supp. 3d 179, 211 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify the precise limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations when an employee proposes an accommodation.

Singh v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center · filed 2020-01-16(o)(3)

Under the ADA, when an employee proposes a reasonable accommodation, “the employer has a duty to engage in an ‘interactive process’ to ‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Melange v. City of Ctr. Line, 482 F. App’x 81, 84-85 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... The Court disagrees with Defendants because several facts of record could allow a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendants failed to adequately work with Plaintiff to identify whether some accommodation could be arranged to permit Plaintiff to continue to work. ... Accordingly, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could find that Defendants failed to engage in the interactive-process as mandated by the ADA. Therefore, Plaintiff’s interactive process claim will proceed to trial.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential accommodations, but failure to engage in that process alone does not establish a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia · filed 2020-02-03(o)(3)

The applicable regulation provides: To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Kelly suggests that the Town is liable for failure to accommodate simply because it did not engage in an interactive process with him. The Fourth Circuit has rejected that argument. ... “[A]n employee cannot base a reasonable accommodation claim solely on the allegation that the employer failed to engage in an interactive process.” Walter v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 99-2622, 2000 WL 1587489, at *4 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2000) (unpublished). Instead, the plaintiff is required to show that “the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process resulted in the failure to identify an appropriate accommodation for the disabled employee.” Id.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says that a covered entity may need to begin an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Icenhour v. The Town of Abingdon · filed 2020-02-03(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation, but a breakdown attributable to the employee rather than the employer does not establish an accommodation violation.

Crankshaw v. City of Elgin · filed 2020-02-24(o)(3)

See Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)) (“Once an employee has made a request for an accommodation, the ADA’s regulations state that ‘it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation’ in order to craft a reasonable accommodation.”) ... “Courts interpreting the interactive process requirement have held that when an employer’s unwillingness to engage in a good faith interactive process leads to a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee, the employer violates the ADA,” unless that process’s “breakdown . . . is traceable to the employee and not the employer.” Id. In the same manner as described above, the jury could have concluded from the evidence presented at trial that the breakdown of the interactive process was traceable to Crankshaw, not Defendants. Again, Crankshaw has not demonstrated that this conclusion was or would be truly against the great weight of the evidence, so she is not entitled to a new trial for this reason either.

A reasonable accommodation can include a finite period of leave, and once an employee puts the employer on notice of a request, the employer should initiate an interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations.

NAPOLI v. GREENWOOD GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC. · filed 2019-11-25(o)(ii), (o)(3)

A reasonable accommodation is a “modification or adjustment to the work environment, or to the matter or circumstances under which the position held is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii). ... Once the employee puts the employer on notice of his request, the employer should “initiate an interactive process” to identify the employee’s precise limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 318– 319 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Reed v. FedEx Corporation · filed 2020-03-03(o)(3)

ADA regulations require that in order to determine “the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. The Sixth Circuit has made the process mandatory, and “both parties have a duty to participate in good faith.” Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, but no further process is required when a reasonable accommodation has already been achieved.

Williams v. Geiger · filed 2020-03-19(o)(3)

The process to which Williams refers is contemplated by the ADA regulations, which provide that “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Thus, “the ADA imposes no liability for an employer’s failure to explore alternative accommodations when the accommodations provided to the employee were plainly reasonable.” Noll, 787 F.3d at 98. “[T]he interactive process is not required when the end it is designed to serve—reasonable accommodation—has already been achieved.” Id. ... Thus, no further interactive process was required. See Noll, 787 F.3d at 98.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the parties to engage in a flexible, interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

RAGSDALE v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEMS · filed 2020-04-13(o)(3)

Both parties must engage in “a flexible, interactive process” that “identif[ies] the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) & Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9 at 359).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process between the covered entity and employee to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, and an employee who does not provide necessary medical information or participate in that process cannot claim a failure to accommodate.

Neri v. Albuquerque Public Schools · filed 2020-04-22(o)(3)

ADA regulations clarify that “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Likewise here, Plaintiff did not provide medical information to APS in order to allow for an interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says the interactive accommodation process should identify precise disability-related limitations and potential accommodations addressing them.

Icenhour v. The Town of Abingdon · filed 2020-05-20(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... But the requests in the letter are not tied to limitations caused by any particular disabilities and are not even specific to Icenhour. Rather, the requests appear to address general workplace grievances.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process, when necessary, to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia · filed 2020-05-20(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer and employee to engage in a good-faith interactive process to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, but does not require the employer to propose accommodations the employee never requested.

Peskin v. Joseph and Florence Mandel Jewish Day School · filed 2020-07-29(o)(3)

While employers must engage with the employee in good faith “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), employers are “not required to propose counter accommodations” or volunteer options that the employee never requested, Fisher, 951 F.3d at 421; see also Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 203 (6th Cir. 2010); Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 72.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with an employee with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Dressel v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2020-10-02(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.”