29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates a flexible, interactive give-and-take between employer and employee to identify disability-related limitations and determine an accommodation that enables continued work.

Ali v. Pruitt · filed 2020-10-19(o)(3)

As the D.C. Circuit has explained, the Rehabilitation Act “contemplates an interactive process, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)—that 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) requires an employer to engage in an individualized interactive inquiry after an employee with a disability requests an accommodation.

O'Donnell v. University Hospitals Cleveland · filed 2020-10-29(o)(3)

When an employee with a disability requests an accommodation, the ADA mandates that an employer must engage in an “individualized inquiry” based on an “interactive process” to determine whether the employee’s disability disqualifies her from a particular position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Rorrer, 743 F.3d at 1040. “Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process.” Hostettler, 895 F.3d at 857.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the interactive accommodation process to identify the employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations that could address them.

H.R. Garten v. PHRC · filed 2020-12-10(o)(3)

“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 316 (citing 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as identifying the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Hobson v. Mattis · filed 2021-02-15(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.’” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation by identifying the disability-related limitations and potential accommodations that could overcome them.

Husain v. Warren · filed 2021-02-19(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.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments enabling a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions, and § 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify limitations and accommodations.

HARPER v. ODLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC · filed 2021-02-25(o)(1)(ii), (o)(3)

A reasonable accommodation is defined as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” ... 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. ... The Court therefore concludes that the circumstances here were not such that a reasonable employer would have had to inquire further into Harper’s need and desire for an accommodation beyond those already provided.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and employee to engage in an interactive process to identify and consider a reasonable accommodation, including coordinating with a party able to provide it.

Lanir v. Yorktown Systems Group · filed 2021-03-19(o)(3)

But the ADA nonetheless requires, at a minimum, that an employer forward the employee’s accommodation request to the party able to provide the requested accommodation—in this case, FSI, the party employing Hickman—and that Plaintiff, Defendant, and FSI then engage in an interactive process to consider whether an accommodation is warranted under the circumstances, and if so, the nature of such an accommodation.

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

Woodruff v. Ohio Department of Transportation · filed 2021-04-09(o)(3)

Through this process, the parties are 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)). Both the employer and employee “have a duty to participate in good faith.” Id. at 871 (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), judgment vacated on other grounds, 535 U.S. 391 (2002)). ... The Court finds that the interactive process piece of the reasonable accommodation analysis prevents summary judgment for either party on plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with an employee with a disability to identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations; failure to engage in that process may be evidence supporting a failure-to-accommodate claim, but does not excuse proof that the employee could perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.

May v. City of Union Springs · filed 2021-04-15(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). ... Based on the record, it appears that the type of interactive process envisioned by the regulations did not occur. ... A defendant’s failure to engage in the interactive process may serve as adminicular evidence in support a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate a plaintiff’s disability. ... However, regardless of whether a defendant has failed to engage in the interactive process, a plaintiff cannot succeed on a failure-to-accommodate claim unless he can show that he could have performed the relevant job with (or without) a reasonable accommodation.

(o)(1)(ii) treats an accommodation as reasonable when it enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position, while (o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations.

Dressel v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2021-06-04(o)(1)(ii), (o)(3)

A reasonable accommodation either (1) enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of a position, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), or (2) enables an employee with a disability to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by . . . other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” ... The applicable federal regulations provide that to “determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process . . . .” 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) provides that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

BAKER v. CITY OF WASHINGTON PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2021-06-10(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.

The regulation requires an informal interactive process in which the employer and employee participate in good faith to identify reasonable accommodations.

Brown v. Queen City Supply Company · filed 2021-06-25(0)(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.” ... “Id.; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) (describing the interactive process).”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and employee to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia · filed 2021-09-07(o)(3)

“Implicit in the fourth element is the ADA requirement that the employer and employee engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.” Haneke v. Mid-Atl. Capital Mgmt., 131 F. App’x 399, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (unpublished); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process between employers and employees to identify a potential reasonable accommodation, and an employee who fails to engage in it cannot challenge the employer’s failure to accommodate.

Simmons v. Mercedes-Benz US International Inc · filed 2021-09-20(o)(3)

To identify a potential accommodation, the ADA and its corresponding regulations contemplate an “interactive process” between employers and disabled employees. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). An employee’s failure to engage in the interactive process precludes that employee from “challeng[ing] his employer’s failure to accommodate his disability.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that, after notice of a disability and the need for accommodation, the employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

CAMPO v. MID-ATLANTIC PACKAGING SPECIALTIES, LLC · filed 2021-09-29(o)(3)

“[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 accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) can require an employer to engage in an informal interactive process to identify a suitable accommodation, but the employer's failure to do so is not actionable when the employee fails to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Thatcher v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2021-10-22(o)(3)

In some circumstances, an employer may be required to engage in an “informal, interactive process” to identify a suitable accommodation for an employee with a disability. Frazier-White, 818 F.3d at 1257 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). However, we have held that where the plaintiff fails to identify a reasonable accommodation, an employer’s failure to engage in this process is not actionable. See id. at 1257-58.

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

DRAPIKOWSKI v. MALVERN INSTITUTE, INC. · filed 2021-12-01(o)(3)

An employee’s request for an accommodation triggers both sides’ duty to participate in the “interactive process.” Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 415, 420 (3d Cir. 1997). Specifically, employers are required to make reasonable efforts to communicate with their employee in good faith and assist their employee in determining whether an accommodation is reasonable. Id.; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(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.”).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as identifying the precise limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations to overcome them.

Blanchet v. Charter Comm'ns, LLC · filed 2022-03-08(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.’”

(o)(3) calls for an employer to initiate an informal interactive process, when necessary, to identify disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Hart v. HCFS Health Care Financial Services, LLC · filed 2022-03-22(o)(3)

The ADA's regulations 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). 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.” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (internal quotation and citations omitted). “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.” Id. “Although mandatory, failure to engage in the interactive process is only an independent violation of the ADA if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie showing that [s]he proposed a reasonable accommodation.” Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025, 1041 (6th Cir. 2014).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an informal, interactive process involving communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.

Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-03-31(o)(3)

Plaintiff is correct that once an employee makes a request for accommodations, the employer has a duty to engage in an “informal, interactive process,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), requiring “communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” ... But “an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process is actionable only if the employee can demonstrate that [there was a position for which] []he was qualified.”

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

Wilson v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2022-06-03(o)(3)

In “de-termin[ing] 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) (emphasis added). ... It took the VA four months to even attempt to initiate the interactive process, despite being repeatedly placed on notice of Wilson’s disability and her request. A jury could thus find that the VA’s four-month-long inaction in addressing Wilson’s request constitutes a failure to accommodate in violation of its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act, regardless of Wilson’s subsequent failure to provide the documentation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process between the employee and employer to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Watson v. EQH Service Company, LLC · filed 2022-06-22(o)(3)

The employee and employer must engage in an “interactive process” to determine the necessity and nature of any potential accommodation. Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2002); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) (discussing potential need for interactive process to determine appropriate accommodation).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an informal, interactive process to identify potential accommodations when an employee requests one.

LeBlanc v. McDonough · filed 2022-07-14(o)(3)

When an employee requests an accommodation, the Rehabilitation Act requires employers to consider potential solutions by engaging in an “informal, interactive process.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); see also Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2002). To show that an employer failed to engage in this process, an employee must show, in part, that “the employer did not make a good faith effort to assist the employee in seeking accommodations” and “the employee could have been reasonably accommodated but for the employer’s lack of good faith.” Id. (citation omitted). LeBlanc fails both requirements.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) makes the interactive process a means of identifying the precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, so a failure to engage in that process is not independently actionable when it did not prevent identification of an appropriate accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. · filed 2022-08-16(o)(3)

Second, even if the EEOC was pursuing such a claim, the claim would fail. The ADA regulation that references the “interactive process” states the following: ... Thus, the purpose of the “interactive process” is “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.” Id. In line with that purpose, the Sixth Circuit has held that, even if an employer “did not put sufficient effort into the interactive process of finding an accommodation, that failure is actionable only if it prevents identification of an appropriate accommodation for a qualified individual.” E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 766 (6th Cir. 2015) (emphasis removed) (internal citation and quotation marks removed).

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

Balthrop v. Montgomery County Maryland · filed 2022-08-30(o)(3)

The ADA regulations further provide that 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). ... Implicit in the fourth element of the Wilson test is the requirement “that the employer and employee engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.” Haneke v. Mid-Atl. Cap. Mgmt., 131 F. App'x 399, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he requested a reasonable accommodation, and that Defendant did not provide one.

Section 1630.2 recognizes that determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require a covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with an individual with a disability.

Talbott-Serrano v. Iona College · filed 2022-08-29

“[I]f the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled,” that employer has an obligation to “engage in an interactive process . . . and in that way work together to assess whether an employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated.” Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up); see 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 individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.”).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as someone who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation, and § 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer that learns of the need for accommodation to engage in an interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations.

Johnson v. Del Toro · filed 2022-10-28(m), (o)(3)

A qualified individual is a person who with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... Once an employer learns of the need for accommodation, that employer has a mandatory obligation to engage in an interactive process with the disabled employee to identify reasonable accommodations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Barnett v. U.S. Air Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 535 U.S. 391, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to begin an informal interactive process after the employee identifies specific limitations and provides information about potential accommodations.

DAYOAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE · filed 2022-11-23(o)(3)

“Only after the employee provides this information must the employer ‘initiate an informal, interactive process’ with the employee to discuss the employee’s specific limitations, explore potential accommodations, and select the most appropriate accommodation for both the employer and the employee.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2022)).

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

Smart v. Geisinger Health · filed 2022-12-20(o)(3)

Federal regulations interpreting the ADA provide that in order “[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 accommodation.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an informal interactive process with an employee who requests an accommodation, to determine adjustments that would enable the employee to perform the essential job functions.

Golden v. City of Longview · filed 2022-11-01(o)(3)

The ADA requires employers to engage in an informal interactive process with an employee who requests an accommodation because of his disability to determine what adjustments would allow him to perform the essential functions of his job. Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 1999); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require a covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with an individual with a disability.

DeSantis v. Mayor and City Counsel of Baltimore · filed 2023-01-12(o)(3)

The ADA regulations 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). Mr. Chery, the DPW ADA Coordinator, met with Plaintiff on May 1, 2019, to do just that; Plaintiff admits this. (ECF No. 59-6 at 4). Plaintiff does not assert that Mr. Chery denied his request for reasonable accommodations at that meeting or thereafter. Instead, Plaintiff was terminated before the accommodation process was completed.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may involve an informal interactive process between the agency and the employee.

Anderson v. Department of the Interior · filed 2023-01-31(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the agency may engage in an informal, “interactive process” with the employee . See Brown v. Department of the Interior, 121 M.S.P.R. 205, ¶ 21 (2014), overruled on other grounds by Haas v. Department of Homel and Security, 2022 MSPB 36; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). However, when the existence or nature of a reasonable accommodation is not obvious, and the employee fails to respond to reasonable requests for medical information and documentation, the agency will not be found to have violated its duty to provide a reasonable accommodation because the appellant failed to fulfill his obligations in the interactive process . White v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 405, ¶ 12 (2013). ... Given these facts, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant failed to engage in the interactive process. ID at 16-18.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that identifying an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require the covered entity to initiate an informal interactive process, but the process does not require creating a nonexistent position.

Rausch v. Alta Cima Corp. · filed 2023-02-24(o)(3)

ADA regulations 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) (2012). The duty to engage in the interactive process is “generally triggered when an employee communicates to his employer his disability and his desire for an accommodation for that disability.” Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337, 346–47 (4th Cir. 2013). However, ADA does not require an employer to create a nonexistent position as an accommodation. Perdue, 999 F.3d at 960 (citing Laird v. Fairfax Cnty., 978 F.3d 887, 892 n.3 (4th Cir. 2020)). As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “the interactive process ‘is not an end in itself’ but a ‘means for determining what reasonable accommodations are available to allow a disabled individual to perform the essential job functions of the position sought.’” Perdue, 999 F.3d at 962 (quoting Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2013)). “So ‘an employer will not be liable for failure to engage in the interactive process if the employee ultimately fails to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform the essential functions of the position.’” Id. (quoting Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 581 (4th Cir. 2015)). Here, Rausch admitted that she was unable to work the full-time schedule that the sales position demanded. Rausch Dep., Vol. I, ECF No. 22-8, at 180–81. Thus, she could not perform the essential functions of the position she sought. Because Alta Cima was not required to create a part-time flexible position for Rausch, any failure to engage in the interactive process is inconsequential, requiring summary judgment on Rausch’s failure-to-accommodate claim.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations that could overcome them.

Wood v. Bristol Virginia Utility Authority · filed 2023-03-13(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate accommodation, the employer may need to engage in an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential reasonable accommodations “that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

After a request for reasonable accommodation, the employer and employee must engage in an informal, interactive process in good faith to determine an appropriate accommodation.

Perry v. Norton Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2023-03-31(o)(3)

Upon request for reasonable accommodation, plaintiff triggers “an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). In the Sixth Circuit, the informal, interactive process is mandatory. Lafata v. Church of Christ Home for Aged, 325 Fed. App’x 416, 422 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 527 F.3d 539, 556 (6th Cir. 2008)). Accordingly, “[p]arties should not obstruct the process, or refuse to participate” in good faith, Jakubowski, 627 F.3d at 202, and ought to participate directly with each other. Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871.

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

Nyarko v. Davita Kidney Care · filed 2023-03-31(o)(3)

The applicable ADA 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). ... Based on Nyarko’s allegations, Da Vita did not fail to respond to her June 15, 2020 request for accommodations. Rather, Nyarko alleges that Da Vita engaged in the interactive process required by the ADA and agreed to provide her specific accommodations in line with her requests. Therefore, she does not allege facts that would allow the Court to infer that DaVita failed to provide reasonable accommodations in response to her June 15, 2020 request.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process in good faith with a disabled employee who needs an accommodation to identify potential accommodations.

McKinney v. County of Macomb · filed 2023-06-06(o)(3)

True, the ADA requires an employer to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation” in a good faith effort to identify potential accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). But the Sixth Circuit has made clear that “if the employee fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact that a reasonable accommodation would have allowed her to perform the essential functions of her job, she cannot survive summary judgment on an interactive-process claim.” Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2017); see also E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 766 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc). So the conclusion that McKinney failed to identify a reasonable accommodation makes it unnecessary to consider whether the County failed to engage in the interactive process.

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

O'Day v. Wilkes-Barre Area School District · filed 2023-06-30(o)(3)

The applicable regulations further 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. 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). The Court finds that O’Day has adequately pleaded of his failure to accommodate based on disability claims, and it would therefore be premature to dismiss the claims at this time. O’Day has adequately alleged that he was disabled and that the School District knew about it, the first element of a failure to accommodate claim. (Doc. 10, ¶¶ 16-22, 38, 43). O’Day has moreover alleged that he requested accommodations for his disability, including frequent rest breaks, a restriction to light duty responsibilities, and transfer to another facility. (Doc. 10, ¶¶ 27-29, 43). Lastly, O’Day pleads that the School District did not make a good faith effort to assist his accommodation requests and that he could have been reasonably accommodated. (Doc. 10, ¶¶ 47-48, 71, 74-75).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process in which the employer and employee work together to determine an effective reasonable accommodation.

Geter v. United States Government Publishing Office · filed 2023-07-25(o)(3)

The process of determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation requires an “interactive process” between the employer and the disabled employee. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This process involves “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, 762 F.3d at 32 (citation omitted). If an employee prematurely and unreasonably abandons the give-and-take, the employer is entitled to summary judgment. See id. at 32–35; Stewart v. St. Elizabeths Hosp., 589 F.3d 1305, 1308–09 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process in which the covered entity and employee identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Roberts v. Verizon Wireless · filed 2023-09-13(o)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations state that, in order 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).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to initiate an informal interactive process after an employee provides enough information about a specific, reasonable accommodation request.

PONZOLI v. TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF GEORGIA · filed 2023-10-23(o)(3)

“Only after the employee provides this information must the employer ‘initiate an informal, interactive process’ with the employee to discuss the employee’s specific limitations, explore potential accommodations, and select the most appropriate accommodation for both the employer and the employee.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that Ponzoli provided enough information to ATC to trigger its duty to engage in an interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process in which employers and employees discuss the disability, the accommodation, and the essential functions of the job to determine a reasonable accommodation.

LAFIANDRA · filed 2023-10-31(o)(3)

These are not impermissible statements to be construed by the Court as suggestive of discriminatory animus in of themselves. The law permits, and indeed encourages, an interactive process between employers and employees to determine what accommodations would be reasonable to address a disability, which necessarily requires questions about the impact of the disability and how the accommodation impacts the performance of the essential functions of the job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). Defendant cannot face liability for evidence which suggests its employees made efforts to make appropriate decisions in navigating Plaintiff’s disability and the requirements of the job.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and employee to engage in an interactive process in good faith to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Peterson v. Capital One N.A. · filed 2023-12-07(o)(3)

Implicit in the fourth element [of the prima facie case] is the ADA requirement that the employer and employee engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.

It contemplates an informal interactive process in which the employer and disabled employee determine the extent of the disability and possible accommodations.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon · filed 2024-01-02(o)(3)

That is because ADA regulations contemplate that the employer will pursue an “informal, interactive process” with its disabled employees to ascertain the extent of their disabilities and the range of accommodations that might address them.

The regulation says an employer may need to begin an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Hester v. Osage Landfill, Inc. · filed 2024-01-09(o)(3)

To this end, ADA regulations provide that it may be necessary for employers “to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of accommodation…to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations.” ... However, beyond conclusory statements and a recitation of elements, the amended complaint fails to allege any substantive facts to support an inference that Mr. Hester initiated the interactive process by requesting an accommodation or reassignment.

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

VOIGT v. FLUOR MARINE PROPULSION, LLC · filed 2024-02-12(o)(3)

As noted, supra, the EEOC’s administrative regulations provide that, in determining 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). That process should “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” ... These undisputed facts clearly show that, after Plaintiff requested that he be permitted to work onsite without wearing a mask as an accommodation for his PTSD, FMP did not demand that Plaintiff immediately wear a mask, requested additional information from Plaintiff about his condition and his limitations, and conducted several meetings with Plaintiff, both with medical personnel and with HR. FMP and Plaintiff discussed what Plaintiff wanted and, based on his requests, FMP offered and discussed available alternatives because Plaintiff’s specific requests were not effective options for reasonable accommodations. Upon consideration of such undisputed evidence, the Court finds that a reasonable jury would be unable to find that FMP failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith.

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

Wiberg, Eric v. Pixelle Specialty Solutions LLC · filed 2024-03-22(o)(3)

The regulations similarly contemplate an interactive process initiated by the employer. 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.”).

(o)(1)(ii) describes reasonable accommodations as changes to the work environment or how a job is performed that enable a qualified person with a disability to perform essential functions, while (o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify limitations and possible accommodations.

Geronimo v. Pottsville Ford · filed 2024-03-29(o)(1)(ii), (o)(3)

However, the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recognizes reasonable accommodations to include “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired 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)(1)(ii). ... see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(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.”). Accordingly, to trigger Pottsville Ford’s duty to accommodate, Geronimo must have notified its representatives that she required reasonable accommodations for her disabilities.

Section 1630.2 requires an employer to engage in an informal interactive process after a specific accommodation request, and defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Oirya v. Mando American Corporation · filed 2024-04-04(o)(3); (o)(1)(ii)

If the employee provides this information, the employer may need to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with the employee to identify the employee’s limitations resulting from the disability and determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Frazier-White, 818 F.3d at 1257. However, absent a specific request for an accommodation and a denial, “there can be no failure to accommodate under the ADA.” ... Oirya’s request to modify Mando’s disciplinary procedures to give him due-process-type protections does not constitute a request for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. A reasonable accommodation is one that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of his job. Holly, 492 F.3d at 1256; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (defining “reasonable accommodation” to mean modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability “to perform the essential functions” of a position).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require the covered entity to initiate an informal interactive process with the individual with a disability.

McCrae v. H.N.S. Management Company · filed 2024-05-03(o)(3)

When an employee requests an accommodation, “[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.” Jackan v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 205 F.3d 562, 566 (2d Cir. 2000); 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.”).

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

Smith v. Presidio Networked Solutions, LLC · filed 2024-06-26(o)(3)

In reading these statutes, the Circuit concluded that “[a]dverse employment decisions in this context include refusing to make reasonable accommodations for a plaintiff's disabilities” which through 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) may be invoked by a failure to engage in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to make a good-faith effort through an informal interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation, but it does not require any particular concession.

UYGUR v. GENSLER · filed 2024-07-19(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). But “[t]he interactive process does not dictate that any particular concession must be made by the employer . . . . All the interactive process requires is that employers make a good-faith effort to seek accommodations.” Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 317 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

Section 1630.2(o)(ii)(3) requires an employer to engage in the informal interactive process only after the employee identifies a specific reasonable accommodation.

Daugherty v. City of Pooler · filed 2024-08-12(o)(ii)(3)

The regulations governing the ADA also explain that an employer may need “to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of an accommodation” to identify the person’s limitations and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii)(3). ... Because Plaintiff has not shown evidence that he requested a reasonable accommodation, the City did not have to engage in the interactive process, and its failure to find an accommodation for Plaintiff does not amount to discrimination.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to initiate an informal interactive process only after the employee makes a specific accommodation demand and demonstrates that the accommodation is reasonable.

Monroe v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC · filed 2024-09-25(o)(3)

Only after the employee meets these requirements will the employer then be required to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with the employee “to discuss the employee’s specific limitations, explore potential accommodations, and select the most appropriate accommodation for both the employer and the employee.” Owens, 52 F.4th at 1334 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with an employee who needs a reasonable accommodation.

DOLLEH v. SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P. · filed 2024-09-30(o)(3)

The ADA regulations also state that it may be necessary for the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee in need of an accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Taylor, 184 F.3d at 311.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process in which the employer and employee communicate in good faith to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Koch v. Early Impressions Learning Center, LLC · filed 2024-10-23(o)(3)

Determining reasonable accommodations is an “‘interactive process.’” Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 311 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized in Rocco v. Gordon Food Serv., 998 F. Supp. 2d 422, 426 n.1 (W.D. Pa. 2014). ... In this frame, subsequent employee proposals submitted while the employer is acting in good faith are not new requests because they are part of the “interactive process” contemplated by EEOC regulations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). A request for reasonable accommodation remains live until an employer manifests unequivocal intent to reject any proposed accommodation or stops negotiating in good faith. An employee may then make a new request by communicating a less restrictive alternative not previously discussed.

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

Booker v. Delta Air Lines · filed 2025-03-25(o)(3)

If an employee requests an accommodation, the ADA also imposes an independent duty on the employer to engage in an “individualized inquiry” through “an ‘interactive process’ to determine whether the employee’s disability disqualifies” him from a particular position. Id. at 617 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). The employer must “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 seeking to identify an appropriate accommodation to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee.

Johnson v. Asurion, LLC · filed 2025-03-30(o)(3)

In the employment context, covered employers generally must provide a reasonable accommodation for an otherwise qualified employee or applicant with a disability, if such an accommodation is requested. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. In order to identify an appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer generally must “initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” Id. at § 1630.2(o)(3).

Once an employer is on notice of a disability and the employee’s desire for accommodation, the regulation requires it to begin an interactive process to identify the disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

TYLER v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P. · filed 2025-05-21(o)(3)

Once the employer is on notice, it has a duty to begin an interactive process to “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).

Subsection (o)(3) concerns an informal interactive process for identifying disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations, particularly in the employment context, and does not make that process a generally required ADA/RA procedure.

Scott, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2025-08-06(o)(3)

Scott further alleges that various defendants ignored his requests for “ADA accommodations,” and failed to engage in an “inter-active process” to find reasonable accommodations. Neither the ADA nor the RA requires an “inter-active process”; that term is typically used in the employment context as one way to determine whether an employee with a disability can work for a particular employer. See Shapiro v. Twp. of Lakewood, 292 F.3d 356, 359 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) may require an employer, in some circumstances, to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Lott · filed 2026-01-29(o)(3)

Concerning the interactive process, the ADA’s regulations state that an employer may, in some circumstances, need to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with a disabled employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Accepted as true, the Complaint sufficiently alleges Ms. Lott triggered CareerSource’s duty to at least engage in the interactive process. ... Therefore, accepting the factual allegations as true, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that CareerSource failed to accommodate Plaintiff by refusing to participate in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive exchange of information between an employer and an employee with a disability to identify an appropriate reasonable accommodation, and a party's bad-faith failure to participate may cause a breakdown for which that party is responsible.

Kayode v. Blanche · filed 2026-05-05(o)(3)

To identify an appropriate 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 “interactive process” is not an “end in itself,” but rather an “exchange of information” between the employer and the employee designed to “facilitate the identification of an appropriate accommodation.” Ali, 111 F.4th at 1274 (citations omitted). Courts may scrutinize whether either party’s “failure to participate in good faith” has caused “a breakdown in the process” and assign responsibility accordingly.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process in which the employer and employee communicate in good faith to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Ahuruonye v. Department of the Interior · filed 2026-04-13(o)(3)

Rather, “[t]he Rehabilitation Act contemplates an ‘interactive process,’” Ali v. Pruitt, 727 F. App’x 692, 695 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)), which 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[,]” Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and employee to communicate, exchange essential information, and participate in good faith to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Burson v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2026-05-22(o)(3)

If a disabled employee makes a reasonable accommodation request, the employer is obligated to engage in the “interactive process,” which requires “communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871. “[T]he ‘interactive process is mandatory and both parties have a duty to participate in good faith.’” Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099, 1110 (6th Cir.), quoting Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871. “[I]n order for the interactive process to work, [b]oth sides must communicate directly, exchange essential information and neither side can delay or obstruct the process.” (Cleaned up.) Cioroch v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 2008-Ohio-5725, ¶ 31 (Ct. of Cl.). Communication between the parties is essential because this “process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 202 (6th Cir. 2010), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2010). “When a party obstructs the process or otherwise fails to participate in good faith, courts should attempt to isolate the cause of the breakdown and then assign responsibility.” (Cleaned up.) Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer to engage in an informal, interactive process with an individual with a disability to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

Fuller · filed 2026-06-03(o)(3)

Shelby County asserts correctly that “[t]he ADA requires an employer to engage in ‘an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.’” ... But whether Fuller should have been more persistent in his attempts to get his physician to fill out the requested paperwork Shelby County provided, and whether the letters he provided to Shelby County were sufficient to constitute engagement in the interactive process, are determinations better suited for trial, not summary judgment.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides for an informal, interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation; an employer’s responsive transfers can show a good faith effort to accommodate an employee.

Hunter v. Wal-Mart Stores · filed 2004-05-07(o)(3)

Assuming that Hunter’s genetic blood-clot disorder qualifies as a disability under the ADA, we agree with the district court that Hunter did not create a trialworthy issue as to whether Wal-Mart failed to make a good faith effort to accommodate her. ... Upon her return, in response to a request from Hunter's doctor dated April 15, Wal-Mart transferred her to a position that would require less standing, and when the demands of that position proved unsatisfactory for Hunter’s condition, Wal-Mart transferred her again, to a position that has proved satisfactory. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2003) (appropriate reasonable accommodation determined through informal, interactive process between employer and employee); Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2002) (employee must show that employer did not make good faith effort to assist employee in seeking accommodation, and but for employer’s lack of good faith, employee could have been accommodated).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage with a disabled employee in an interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and possible accommodations.

Donna Hendricks-Robinson, Penny Moore, Teresa Westlake v. Excel Corporation · filed 1998-09-24(o)(3)

The “reasonable accommodation” element of the Act 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 which might enable the employee to continue working.

An employee seeking a reasonable accommodation must participate in the interactive process; withdrawing from it can defeat a failure to accommodate claim.

Verne v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2023-09-29(o)(3)

“An employee seeking an accommodation [under the ADA] is obliged to participate in [an] interactive process in order to help the employer identify the ‘precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Monterroso, 591 F. Supp. 2d at 579 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Verne’s retirement cut off the interactive process throughout which she could secured a reasonable accommodation.

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

Ajisafe v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2026-03-13(o)(3)

Once an employee requests an accommodation, an employer must “engage with the employee in an interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances.” Jones v. District of Columbia, No. 23-CV-1488, 2024 WL 1213326, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2024) (quoting Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 365, 373 (7th Cir. 2000)); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides for an interactive process to identify a disabled person’s limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc. · filed 2003-10-28(o)(3)

The intended purpose of this interactive process is to, “identify the precise limitations resulting from the [qualified individual’s] disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), Reasonable accommodation. ... Consequently, we find appellant’s obligation to actively participate in the interactive process was triggered.

An employer’s eventual accommodation does not resolve a dispute over whether it participated in the interactive process in good faith.

O'Dell v. Department of Public Welfare of Penn. · filed 2004-09-28(o)(3)

Accordingly, although the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff was ultimately provided reasonable accommodation, the Court shall deny the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law where the inferences in favor of the Plaintiff present a genuine issue of material fact regarding good faith effort on the part of the Defendant in returning the Plaintiff to work.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires a good faith interactive process to identify an appropriate accommodation, including a reasonable effort by the employer to determine one.

Woodruff v. LaHood · 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.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal interactive process when needed to identify a reasonable accommodation; the process is unnecessary when an appropriate accommodation is readily apparent.

Wiederhold v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 2012-08-23(o)(3)

The court noted the use of the phrase “may be necessary” indicates that in some cases, interaction will not be necessary because “the employer and the employee can easily identify an appropriate reasonable accommodation.” Id., 228 F.3d at 1112. Such was the case here, where Sears initiated appropriate accommodations in compliance with each of Wiederhold’s doctor’s notes from the time she began having problems with her feet until at least November 2010, when she was put back on the regular work schedule for MCAs.

The interactive accommodation process requires an employer to explore reasonable options in good faith, but does not require it to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation.

Morris v. Johnson · filed 2013-10-30(o)(3)

The EPA did fail to provide Morris with the accommodation she desired, but failure to provide Morris with exactly the accommodation she requested is not, in and of itself, evidence that the EPA did not engage in good faith in the interactive process. ... Any purported breakdown in the interactive process may have been caused by Morris’ insistence on telecommuting, but no evidence shows it was caused by any misfeasance or lack of good faith on behalf of the EPA.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations; an employer’s disciplinary actions may contribute to a breakdown in that process.

Stipe v. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville · filed 2021-02-04(o)(3)

However, a reasonable jury could find that the interactive process was stymied by Plaintiff’s apparent desire to cease employment and continued intransigence (she mentioned on separate occasions that she either wanted to leave her job or that modifications to her workspace were pointless) and Defendant’s initiation of disciplinary proceedings because she would not move.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says an informal, interactive process may be necessary to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Krupa v. Support for You, LLC · filed 2021-09-30(o)(3)

“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2010). ... The various depositions make clear that Defendants and Plaintiff discussed how Plaintiff’s leave would be handled and arrived at a mutually satisfactory arrangement. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact remains whether reasonable accommodations were made.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an individualized interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Harmon v. Collier · filed 2025-10-14(o)(3)

Accepting the Defendants’ argument would eliminate the employer’s duty to undergo an ... interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation on an individualized basis.

Section 1630.2(h)(1), (i), and (j) define physical impairment and major life activity and explain when a major life activity is substantially limited for purposes of an ADA disability claim.

Banks v. Hit or Miss, Inc. · filed 1996-09-23(h)(1), (i), (j)

A “physical or mental impairment” is “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition ... affecting one or more of the following body systems: ... musculoskeletal.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). A “major life activity” includes, but is not limited to, “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). A “major life activity” is substantially limited if a person is “either unable to perform a major life function or is ‘significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration’ under which the individual can perform a particular major life function, as compared to the average person in the general population.”

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a substantial limitation in working to be shown by restriction from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, rather than merely the particular job held.

Anderson v. Richardson · filed 2001-01-10(j)(3)(i)

Rather, plaintiff must show he is limited in performing “a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Therefore, plaintiff must show not that he is limited just in the job he holds with WPA, but in a broad range of similar jobs. Plaintiff has made no effort to do so.

Section 1630.2(j)(l)(i) requires a limitation on a major life activity to be substantial compared with the ability of the average person in the general population.

Keller v. Board of Education of the City of Albuquerque · filed 2001-11-20(j)(l)(i)

The limitation on a major life activity must be substantial when compared to the ability of the “average person in the general population,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i). ... This alone raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff suffers a substantial impairment of her major life activity of sexual intercourse that goes beyond the experience of the average postmenopausal woman.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, § 1630.2(j)(1) defines substantial limitation by comparison with the average person, and § 1630.2(k) covers a history or misclassification of a substantially limiting impairment.

Prince v. Claussen · filed 1999-03-22(i), (j)(1), and (k)

“Major life activities” are defined as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (1998). This list is merely illustrative. ... Although it is conceivable Prince’s injuries may have diminished his former physical capacities to some degree, he is not “significantly restricted” in his ability to perform major life activities as compared to the average person in the general population. ... An individual may be classified as disabled under the ADA if he “has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k) (1998).

The regulation treats working as a major life activity and requires a significant, general restriction on employment for an impairment to substantially limit it; it also defines when an individual is regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment.

Roberts v. New York State Department of Correctional Services · filed 1999-06-02(g), (i), (j), (j)(3)(I), (l)

To qualify for protection under the ADA, Plaintiff must show that his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); ... Working is a major life activity according to the EEOC Regulations accompanying the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, in accordance with the definition of “substantial limitation” in the Regulations accompanying the ADA, that he is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which he can work, as compared to the average person in the general population. ... Further, in analyzing whether plaintiffs major life activity of working is substantially limited, plaintiffs impairment must not only limit the performance of a “single, particular job,” but rather must limit employment generally. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I); ... According to the Regulations, an individual “is regarded as having such an impairment” where such individual ... (1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity but is treated by a covered entity as constituting such limitation; (2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) Has none of the impairments defined [by the EEOC regulations] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) provides that an impairment may substantially limit a major life activity without preventing or significantly or severely restricting it, and § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv) requires an individualized assessment of the impairment's effect on the individual.

Matthews v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2015-06-01(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(iv)

“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). “Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section.” Id. ... The question before us is whether Matthews’s impairment is analogous to the impairment in Summers and the lifting restriction in the EEOC example. In answering this question we must set aside the mild-sounding diagnosis and perform an individualized assessment of the effect of the impairment on the life of Matthews. Alberton’s, 527 U.S. at 566; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv).

An impairment qualifies as a disability when it substantially limits an individual’s ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Smith v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2019-11-25(j)(ii)

“An impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii). Here, the SAC does not plead facts suggesting that Plaintiff’s hypertension substantially limits him in any way, much less in performing a major life activity.

Section 1630.2 treats physiological conditions affecting body systems as impairments, recognizes normal cell growth as a major life activity, and supports disability coverage when such an impairment plausibly substantially limits normal cell growth.

Darby v. Childvine, Inc. · filed 2020-06-30(b), (h)(1), (i)(1)(ii), and (j)(3)(iii)

“Physical or mental impairment” is defined in federal regulations to include “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... “Major life activities” include a non-exhaustive list of activities, including, among other things, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, and interacting with others. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i), (2). Amendments to the ADA in 2008 sweep even more broadly, adding to that list any “operation of a major bodily function, including . . . normal cell growth.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii). ... Utilizing this definitional framework, we ask the following: Has Darby plausibly alleged that her impairment substantially limits her normal cell growth as compared to the general population due to both a genetic mutation (BRCA1) that limits her normal cell growth and a medical diagnosis of abnormal epithelial cell growth serious enough to warrant a double mastectomy? Interpreting the ADA “to the maximum extent permitted by [its] terms” in Darby’s favor, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A), the answer is yes, for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). ... The ADA’s implementing regulations cite cancer as a condition that, “at a minimum,” will qualify as an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii). And that language, to our eye, appears to set a floor, not a ceiling. See id. (“[I]t should easily be concluded that . . . at a minimum . . . cancer substantially limits normal cell growth.”). It is thus at least plausible, at this stage, that Darby’s gene mutation and abnormal cell growth, though not cancerous, qualify as a disability under the ADA.

The regulation defines “substantially limits” broadly, but the limitation must still affect a major life activity rather than merely the way a particular occupation is performed.

Montague v. National Grid USA · filed 2020-11-20(j)(1)(i)

Even under the EEOC’s post-ADAAA regulations that define “substantially limits” broadly and for the statutory maximum coverage, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i), the limitation is still to a major life activity, not the particulars of how that life activity might be performed (again, working as opposed to a particular occupation).

An impairment need not prevent or severely restrict a major life activity to substantially limit it, and diabetes will almost always substantially limit a major life activity because it substantially limits endocrine function.

Ocampo v. DeJoy · filed 2021-01-22(j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)(ii), (j)(3)(iii)

For instance, a substantially limiting impairment “need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict” an individual from performing a major life activity; it need only “substantially limit[] the ability of an individual” from performing the activity “as compared to most people in the general population.” Id. at 573 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). ... Because “diabetes substantially limits endocrine function,” it is one of those impairments which will “almost always” substantially limit a major life activity and for which “the necessary individualized assessment should be particularly simple and straightforward.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)–(iii).

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; the court held that allegations concerning restricted eating and inability to obtain required calories were sufficient to state an ADA claim.

Flint 248501 v. Eicher · filed 2022-01-24(j)(ii)

“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. ... Plaintiff alleged that the state-wide menus for the MDOC contains many of the foods and spices he was told to avoid, so he was unable to obtain the 2,600 calories per day that he was entitled to. Because eating is a major life activity, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state an ADA claim.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability when it substantially limits an individual’s ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Saunders v. Hamm (DEATH PENALTY) · filed 2022-02-17(j)(1)(ii)

Additionally, under the federal regulations, “[a]n impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii); ... As Defendants allude (Doc. # 12, at 48), that mental impairment also must have substantially limited a major life activity. While the Complaint does not identify by name the major life activity that was substantially limited, the favorable inferences arising from those allegations are that his disability substantially limited at least one major life activity, to include reading, concentrating, thinking, or communicating. See § 12102(2)(A).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability only when it substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Schmiege v. The State of New York · filed 2022-11-14(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment is not a disability unless it substantially limits a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii); see Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2005). ... In sum, Schmiege has not alleged that he has an impairment affecting his ability to care for himself, eat, sleep, walk, or perform some other major life activity. He therefore has failed to state a plausible ADA claim because he has not pleaded that he is a qualified individual with a disability.

An impairment may substantially limit a major life activity without preventing or severely restricting it, and major life activities include working and specified everyday functions.

Dawson v. Security Services of Connecticut, Inc. · filed 2022-12-06(j)(1)(ii); (i)

While an impairment “need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity” to be considered substantially limiting, not every impairment constitutes a disability under the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... For Plaintiff to be considered disabled under the ADA, she must show that she had, or was regarded as having, a substantial limitation of a “major life activity,” which is defined as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i); Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2005).

Section 1630.2(h) covers physiological disorders affecting cardiovascular and circulatory systems, § 1630.2(i) treats cardiovascular operation as a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j) makes substantial limitation a non-demanding comparison to most people in the general population.

Mitchell v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc · filed 2023-02-03(h), (i), (j)

A physical impairment includes “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems,” including the cardiovascular and circulatory systems. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). ... The term now includes “[t]he operation of a major bodily function, including . . . circulatory[] [and] cardiovascular . . . functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). “The operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within a body system.” Id. ... While “not every impairment will constitute a disability,” the regulations instruct that “‘[s]ubstantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard” and the inquiry “should not demand extensive analysis.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). Plaintiff does not need to establish that his impairment “prevent[s], or significantly or severely restrict[s]” a “major life activity,” but must only show that it substantially limits his ability “to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” Id. (emphasis added). ... The evidence in the record, therefore, would permit a factfinder to conclude that Plaintiff’s cardiomyopathy substantially limits his cardiovascular system.

The regulation treats mental disorders and physiological conditions affecting body systems as impairments, but requires a substantial limitation of a major life activity for disability status unless the impairment is among those virtually always imposing such a limitation.

Baluch v. 300 West 22 Realty, LLC · filed 2023-01-05(h)(2), (h)(1), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)(ii), (j)(3)(iii)

EEOC regulations state that “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder,” including an “emotional or mental illness,” qualifies as a covered impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). ... The EEOC also considers “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more body systems, such as . . . cardiovascular . . . and endocrine” to be a physical impairment covered by the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... However, merely being impaired is not enough to qualify as being “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“[N]ot every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of [the ADA].”). An impairment is a disability within the meaning of the ADA only if it substantially limits a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... There are certain impairments which the EEOC finds will “virtually always be found to impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii), and thus a bare allegation of their existence might be enough in certain circumstances to survive a motion to dismiss even without an accompanying description of which major life activities they substantially limit. However, none of Baluch’s alleged conditions are on the list of EEOC conditions which will almost always qualify as a disability, and so his bare allegation of suffering from anxiety, hypertension, and hypothyroidism, without more, is insufficient to plead that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) (listing conditions which will almost always impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity); Zuckerman v. GW Acquisition LLC, No. 20-CV-8742 (VEC), 2021 WL 4267815, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s alleged mental health condition, generalized anxiety disorder, is not on the list of EEOC conditions likely to qualify as a disability by its very nature. Accordingly, allegations that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with the condition, without more, are insufficient to plead that Plaintiff suffered from an ADA-qualifying disability.”).

Section 1630.2 treats a physiological disorder affecting a body system as an impairment, identifies major life activities, and measures substantial limitation by the impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Torres v. Cornerstone Fitness TX, LLC · filed 2024-08-09(h)(1), (I), (j)

Using the EEOC as a guide, Plaintiff’s epilepsy is an impairment under the ADA as it is a physiological disorder that affects one or more of her body systems. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) & (2). ... The EEOC has listed walking, seeing, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, hearing, speaking, breathing, and working as major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I). “Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined in light of (1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) its duration or expected duration, and (3) its permanent or expected permanent or long-term impact. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). ... However, during these seizures, her ability to care for herself, perform manual tasks, walk, and learn are impaired. Additionally, Plaintiff’s frequent absences and hospitalization due to epilepsy show that her seizures can be severe, are disruptive to her life, and have significant impacts. (See Dkt. # 26, Ex. 8.) Therefore, she has established at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her epilepsy substantially impairs her major life activities.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability only when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; a short-term impairment generally does not qualify unless it is sufficiently severe.

Nishimura v. Department of the Navy · filed 2024-08-13(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment qualifies as a disability if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... For instance, impairments that only last a short period of time are typically not covered under the ADAAA unless they are sufficiently severe. 29 C.F.R. Appendix at § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). ... Therefore, looking at the length and duration of the impairment, as well as the nature of the medical restrictions, we do not believe the appellant’s impairment was sufficiently severe as to constitute a substantial limitation on a major life activity in comparison with the general population.

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability when it substantially limits an individual’s ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Shumate v. Route 1 Incorporated · filed 2024-08-21(j)(ii)

A condition or impairment is a “disability” in the context of the ADA if it “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii). ... Because Plaintiff has produced no evidence of substantial limitation before or since the single episode on August 15, 2021, he has failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether he is disabled, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claim.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) permits an impairment expected to last less than six months to qualify as an actual disability when it substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

REYES v. WHG PAYROLL INC., ALSO KNOWN AS · filed 2025-06-06(j)(1)(ii)

As the Third Circuit held in Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, 114 F.4th 214, 222 (3d Cir. 2024), because Macfarlan applied the pre-ADAAA standard, its holding regarding temporary impairments “is simply not applicable here.” Rather, the analysis of Plaintiff’s flank pain must focus on whether her impairment “substantially limit[ed]” her ability “to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). On this record, Plaintiff’s allegations of pain establish such a limitation.

Section 1630.2 treats physical impairments affecting major life activities as disabilities when they substantially limit those activities under a broad, non-demanding standard.

Rogers v. Dart · filed 2025-08-06(h), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i)

For purposes of analysis under the ADA, an individual is disabled if he has a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Plaintiffs have submitted evidence of physical impairments. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (“Physical or mental impairment means—(1) Any ... anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as ... neurological [and] musculoskeletal.”). ... Caring for oneself, standing, and walking are each considered a “major life activity” under both the ADA and the corresponding regulations. 42 U.S.C § 12102(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i). ... The governing regulations set forth that “[t]he term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... The evidence weighs in favor of finding that Plaintiff’s and the class’s impairments substantially limit their ability to conduct major life activities. ... In sum, Plaintiff and the class members have made a sufficient showing for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief that they are qualified individuals with disabilities.

Section 1630.2 treats a physiological disorder affecting the heart as a physical impairment and permits a disability to be plausibly alleged when the impairment substantially limits major life activities compared with most people, even if it does not prevent or severely restrict them.

SUMMERS v. CHARMS, LLC · filed 2025-08-08(h)(1), (j)(1)(ii)

A “physical or mental impairment” is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Alleging an impairment is “an appropriate threshold issue but not an onerous burden.” Darby, 964 F.3d at 445 (citation omitted). Plaintiff has pleaded this element because she asserts that she suffers a physiological disorder—a condition that causes an arrythmia—affecting her heart. (ECF No. 23 at PageID 94.) ... The regulations also clarify the meaning of “substantially limits.” “‘Substantially limits’ is a relative term, one defined in relation to a person’s ability to perform a major life activity ‘as compared to most people in the general population.’” Darby, 964 F.3d at 445 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). Impairments “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). ... Plaintiff has pleaded facts here to survive dismissal because she claims that her heart “impairment” “significantly or severely restrict[s]” her ability to engage in major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), (j)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to satisfy the prerequisites for the position and be able to perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(o)(3) permits an employer's accommodation process to require dialogue after the employer has notice of the disability and accommodation need.

Grillasca-Pietri v. Portorican American Broadcasting Co. · filed 2002-11-05(m), (o)(3)

Determining whether a plaintiff is a “qualified individual” under the ADA requires a two-part inquiry. Grillasca must demonstrate (1) that he satisfies the prerequisites for his position and (2) that with or without reasonable accommodation, he is capable of performing the essential functions of his job. ... While determining a reasonable accommodation may require an employer to “initiate a dialogue with an employee in order to determine an appropriate accommodation,” ... the employer needs to be on notice that his employee suffers a disability and thus has a need for an accommodation.

Section 1630.2(m) concerns whether an individual meets job-selection criteria and can perform essential functions with or without accommodation, while § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as workplace adjustments enabling a qualified individual to perform those functions.

Brumfield v. City of Chicago · filed 2013-11-06(m), (o)(1)(ii)

We have not specifically addressed the term “otherwise qualified individual” as it appears in the reasonable-accommodation provision. However, the meaning of the term can be extrapolated from our two-part test for determining whether an individual is “qualified” within the meaning of the ADA, see Hammel, 407 F.3d at 862, a test that tracks the applicable regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); see also id. pt. 1630, app. at 1630.2(m) (explaining that “[t]he determination of whether an individual with a disability is ‘qualified’ should be made in two steps”). ... This explains why the EEOC defines “reasonable accommodation” to refer to workplace adjustments “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)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(4) requires a covered entity to provide a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, only to an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.

Borwick v. Univ of Denver, Bd of Trustees · filed 2014-06-24(o)(4)

She ignores, however, that even if this new provision should be applied retroactively (which we need not and do not decide), she still must show that she was an “otherwise qualified individual.” § 1630.2(o)(4).

Subsection (n) directs the qualified-individual inquiry to job requirements and the ability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation, while subsection (o) does not require indefinite leave that will not enable near-term performance.

Garner v. School District · filed 2014-10-24(n), (o)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Regulations preface the inquiry of whether an individual is “qualified” with two threshold questions: (1) whether the individual has the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the position; and (2) whether the individual, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position. ... The weight of authority in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”), as well as other Circuits, clearly establishes that a leave of absence for an indefinite duration is not a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual with a disability by the ability to perform essential job functions with or without accommodation, § 1630.2(o) includes reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, and § 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation.

Kelly v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 2016-06-16(m), (o), (o)(3)

A qualified individual with a disability is a person with skills, training, and experience to perform the essential functions of a position, with or without reasonable accommodations. Simpson, 113 M.S.P.R. 346, ¶ 13; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). Reasonable accommodations may entail modifications to the individual’s current position or reassignment to a vacant position. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9); Simpson, 113 M.S.P.R. 346, ¶ 13; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... Once the employee has requested accommodation for a medical condition, the employer must engage in the interactive process in an effort to determine an appropriate accommodation. Paris, 104 M.S.P.R. 331, ¶ 17; see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by the required job-related skills, experience, education, and other requirements, while subsection (o) defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments to the work environment that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Galle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority · filed 2022-08-08(m), (o)

This includes education requirements. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (“The term “qualified,” with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position.”). Here, the essential functions of the HR-SBP position require a master’s degree in business administration or a related field, as stated in the written description of the job. It is undisputed that Mr. Galle lacked any type of master’s degree, and no reasonable accommodation could overcome this. ... A reasonable accommodation is defined as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment . . . 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). Here, Mr. Galle never requested a workplace accommodation. His only affirmative request was for a first-floor apartment when discussing temporary housing options with a member of Atrium Health’s talent acquisition team. This is unrelated to the “work environment” and does not qualify as a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2 defines disability, a qualified individual with a disability, and reasonable accommodation, including modifications to the work environment or the manner of performing a position.

Amanda v. National Credit Union Administration · filed 2024-04-05(g), (m), (o)(1)(ii)

An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship on its business operations. ... In order to establish disability discrimination, an employee must show the following: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. ... A qualified individual with a disability is one who can “perform the essential functions of the . . . position that such individual holds or desires” with or without reasonable accommodation. ... A reasonable accommodation means, among other things, modifications or adjustment to the work environment or to the manner or circumstances under which a position is performed and may include job restructuring or the modification of office equipment. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), (2)(ii).

These provisions define who is qualified and what counts as a reasonable accommodation, and require the employer and employee to participate in a good-faith interactive process to identify an effective accommodation.

Klimowicz v. Johnson Controls, Inc. · filed 2025-09-24(m), (o)(3), (o)(1)(ii)

In this context, “‘qualified’ means that the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements” necessary for the position and the corresponding essential duties. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... As the parties discuss, implicit in the fifth prong of Mr. Klimowicz’s claim–failure to provide the necessary accommodation–is the requirement that the employer initiate “an informal interactive process” to determine how an employee’s disability limits him so that reasonable accommodations for the disability can be identified. See Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp., Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 812 (6th Cir. 2020); Arndt v. Ford Motor Co., 716 F. App’x 519, 528 (6th Cir. 2017); 29 CFR § 1630.2(o)(3). This process requires good faith and collaboration from both parties. ... However, liability for failing to engage in the interactive process requires that a reasonable accommodation actually existed. ... A reasonable accommodation is defined, in relevant part, as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired 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)(1)(ii). Typically, “[t]he reasonableness of a proposed accommodation is a question of fact.”

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to meet the job's requirements and perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a form of reasonable accommodation.

Pearson v. Department of the Treasury · filed 2026-03-24(m), (o)(2)(ii)

Further, in connection with a reasonable accommodation claim, the Board may need to address whether a vacant position existed to which the agency could have reassigned the appellant during the relevant time period. ... see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (identifying reassignment to a vacant position as a form of reasonable accommodation). ... Both a claim of disability discrimination based on an individual’s status as disabled and a claim based on an agency’s failure to reasonably accommodate that disability require that the individual be “qualified.” ... A qualified individual with a disability is one who “can perform the essential functions of the . . . position that such individual holds or desires” with or without reasonable accommodation. ... To be “qualified,” the employee must satisfy “the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements” of the job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) requires a two-step qualified-individual inquiry: whether the person satisfies the position’s prerequisites and whether, with or without reasonable accommodation, the person can perform its essential functions.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. GEISINGER HEALTH · filed 2025-03-27(m)

The EEOC advises that “[t]he determination of whether an individual with a disability is ‘qualified’ should be made in two steps. The first step is to determine if the individual satisfies the prerequisites for the position, such as possessing the appropriate educational background, employment experience, skills, licenses, etc. . . . The second step is to determine whether . . . the individual can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired, with or without reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(m); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... Although neither the prerequisites for nor the essential functions of Casterline’s own position or the positions to which she sought reassignment are described at length in the Amended Complaint, they are sufficiently alleged to raise the plausible inference that Casterline is a “qualified individual” as to both her former ophthalmology nursing position and the other nursing positions for which she applied.

Section 1630.2(q) treats an employer-established requirement for eligibility, including a general safety requirement, as a qualification standard that may be defended as a business necessity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Exxon Corp. · filed 2000-02-14(q)

In cases where an employer has developed a general safety requirement for a position, safety is a qualification standard no different from other requirements defended under the ADA’s business necessity provision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(q). Physical requirements, for example, such as lifting, walking or seeing, are acceptable defenses as long as the requirements are job-related and consistent with business necessity. See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. § 1630.10. Requirements that may be valid as a business necessity must be “established” by the employer to be eligible for the position. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(q).

A qualified individual with a disability satisfies the requisite skill and other job-related requirements of the position, and an employer’s admission that an employee is qualified can establish that the employee met legitimate performance expectations.

Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison Co. · filed 1996-09-30(m)

ComEd’s admission indicates that it viewed Matthews as capable of performing all of the essential function of his position. By admitting that Matthews is a qualified individual with a disability, ComEd recognized that he satisfies the requisite skill and other requirements of his job. ... This is sufficient to establish he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations.

Section 1630.2(m) requires an ADA plaintiff to satisfy the position’s requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements before being treated as qualified to perform the position’s essential functions.

Tate v. Farmland Industries, Inc. · filed 2001-10-10(m)

As a condition to performing the essential functions of an employment position, however, an individual must first satisfy “the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to satisfy the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position held or desired.

Granzow v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc. · filed 1998-12-11(m)

First, the disabled individual “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position [she] holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Subsection (m) requires a qualified individual to satisfy the position's requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lee's Log Cabin, Inc. · filed 2008-10-06(m)

This brings us to the question whether Stewart was a "qualified individual" under the ADA. ... A qualified individual is "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). The individual must also "satisf[y] the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). Log Cabin required its wait-staff employees to lift, transport, and carry objects weighing from 25 to 30 pounds up to 20 or more times per shift, and Stewart indicated on her job application that she could not lift more than 10 pounds. ... Stewart, on the other hand, answered "no" to the application question whether accommodations could be made to overcome her lifting restriction. ... Accordingly, Stewart was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and for this additional reason, summary judgment in favor of Log Cabin was appropriate.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as one who satisfies the position's job prerequisites and can perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; accommodation does not ordinarily excuse failure to meet the prerequisites.

Johnson v. Board of Trustees of the Boundary County School District No. 101 · filed 2011-12-08(m)

The EEOC regulation provides that a “qualified individual with a disability” is one “who satisfies the requisite skills, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (emphasis added). ... Initially, we note that the first step of the qualification inquiry, unlike the second step, contains no reference to reasonable accommodation. ... That the EEOC declined to include any reference to reasonable accommodation in the first step suggests that such omission was deliberate.

Section 1630.2(m) treats an employee as qualified only if the employee meets the position’s job-related requirements and can perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Khula v. State Corr. Inst.-Somerset · filed 2016-08-26(m)

Thus, we discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Khula was not qualified to perform his position because he did not obtain his Vocational I Certification as it was a “job-related requirement[] of [his] position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as one who meets the position's requisite job-related qualifications and can perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Rodrigo v. Carle Foundation Hospital · filed 2018-01-02(m)

See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (“The term ‘qualified,’ with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.”). Passing an exam required for licensure would fall into this category.

Section 1630.2(m) treats an individual as qualified only if the individual satisfies the job's requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements, so an employer-required lack of tools or equipment may make the individual unqualified.

Morales v. Premier Fleet Services · filed 2021-10-28(m)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations make clear that an individual is not qualified under the ADA if he lacks “licenses” that an employer requires. 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 Appx. § 1630.2(m). If an individual who lacks requisite licensing is unqualified under the ADA, then so too should be a person who lacks requisite tools and equipment. And Plaintiff makes no argument that this requirement was either itself discriminatory or unrelated to the job’s essential functions. See Shell v. Smith, 789 F.3d 715, 716-17 (7th Cir. 2015).

Section 1630.2(m) treats an individual as qualified when the person meets the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements and can perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.

Griffin v. Defense Logistics Agency · filed 2023-03-09(m)

In order to avoid summary judgment, Plaintiff must present enough evidence whereby a reasonable juror could conclude that he had “the requisite skill[s], experience, education[,] and other job-related requirements” and was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his position as a College Intern. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (defining the term “qualified” under the regulations implementing the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act). ... Still more, Plaintiff became per se unqualified for his position when he failed to maintain the requisite education for his position as a College Intern, under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... The record shows that Plaintiff failed to meet the basic requirements for selection as a College Intern or to stay in the position—namely maintaining a GPA of 2.95.

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to meet the job-related requirements of the position, in addition to being able to perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Morales v. Premier Fleet Services · filed 2023-06-13(m)

We apply a two-part test to determine whether a plaintiff is a qualified individual under the ADA. ... First, the individual must satisfy “the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (emphasis added). Second, the individual, “with or without reasonable accommodation, [must be able to] perform the essential functions of such position.” Id. ... Morales argues that lacking tools cannot render him unqualified. But it can. Premier required welders to supply their own tools, making it a “job-related requirement.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). Morales concedes he was aware of the requirement and did not satisfy it. ... As the District Court rightly held, Morales could not show he was “qualified” for the job on these facts. So his ADA claim failed the second element of his prima facie case and Premier was entitled to summary judgment.

Section 1630.2(m) defines the requisite-skill inquiry by asking whether an individual satisfies the skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position; courts primarily assess threshold prerequisites.

Barstad v. Mid States Incorporated · filed 2025-05-08(m)

The first determination is whether “the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); Anthony, 955 F.3d at 1127–29. Defendant states Plaintiff “failed to satisfy the requisite skill and other job-related requirements of her position as the DON,” and “failed to develop the necessary qualifications for the position.” (Doc. 56 at 12.) But, for this element, courts primarily consider threshold position prerequisites. See Anthony, 955 F.3d at 1127–29 (where a bachelor’s degree was a prerequisite for the job); see also Bates, 511 F.3d at 990 (considering that a package-car driver job requires the applicant to be at least twenty-one years of age and possess a valid driver’s license). Plaintiff had nursing experience (even if it was “minimal”), the appropriate licensure, and an Associate Degree in Nursing (“ADN”) from Yavapai College. (Doc. 56 at 12; Doc. 57-1 at 370.) Plaintiff satisfies the requisite skill requirement.

Section 1630.2(i) defines major life activities, while § 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and identifies evidence relevant to deciding whether a function is essential.

Riel v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation · filed 1997-05-20(i), (n), (n)(3)

The ADA does not define “major life activities.” But EEOC regulations promulgated under the ADA define “major life activities” as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... The EEOC regulations accompanying the ADA define “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). ... A number of types of evidence are relevant to whether a function is “essential,” including: ... Riel introduced evidence suggesting that only final deadlines are important to whether a systems engineer can function within the EDS structure. Riel also introduced evidence that EDS often adjusted milestone deadlines according to the ongoing needs of other employees. ... Given the dispute as to this material fact, Riel is entitled to present his evidence to a jury.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) measures substantial limitation by comparing the person’s condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity with that of the average person, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions.

Quinones v. Potter · filed 2009-09-30(j)(1)(ii), (n)(1)

In addition, a person is substantially limited in these activities if she is “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). ... Essential functions are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position ... not including the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l).

Section 1630.2 recognizes major bodily functions as major life activities, construes “substantially limits” broadly as a non-demanding standard, and evaluates essential functions by factors including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, and the limited number of employees available to perform the function.

Stevens v. City of Oneonta · filed 2024-07-31(i)(1), (j)(i), and (n)(3)

"[A] major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions." Id. § 12102(2)(B); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1). "The term 'substantially limits' shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. 'Substantially limits' is not meant to be a demanding standard." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(i). ... "'In determining whether a particular function is essential, courts consider, among other things, \"[t]he employer's judgment as to which functions are essential,\" \"[w]ritten job descriptions,\" and \"[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function.\"'" Id. at 286-87 (quotations omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... "These requests are not reasonable as they eliminate essential functions of the job: handling certain chemicals in specific ways and taking one weekend shift a month. This conclusion is supported by the extremely limited number of employees who would be reassigned to take over Plaintiff's tasks or shifts. See Sivio v. Vill. Care Max, 436 F. Supp. 3d 778, 791 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)) ("The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed")."

An impairment is a disability when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, while certain diagnoses inherently substantially limit particular bodily functions but not every condition affecting one.

Williams v. The City of New York · filed 2025-05-07(j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)(iii)

An impairment is ability 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. ... In other words, some diagnoses are synonymous with substantial limitation of a certain major bodily function. At the same time, not every condition that has the potential to impact a major bodily function by definition “substantially limits” that function. ... Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that she has a disability. ... Those allegations fail to show that anemia substantially limits any of Plaintiff’s general major life activities under § 12102(2)(A) or major bodily functions under § 12102(2)(B).

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is assessed without regard to mitigating measures such as medication or prosthetic devices.

Sicard v. City of Sioux City · filed 1996-11-27(j)

The court concludes that the EEOC’s interpretive regulations found in 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(h) and (j), which direct that the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be made without regard to mitigating treatments or assistive devices, are entitled to substantial deference.

Section 1630.2(h) requires an impairment to be evaluated without considering mitigating measures such as medication, assistive devices, or prosthetic devices, so corrected vision may still constitute an impairment.

Peacock v. County of Marin · filed 1997-01-23(h)

Under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (App.) the existence of an impairment, for ADA purposes, is to be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines, or assistive or prosthetic devices. By way of examples, an individual with epilepsy who is able to completely control her impairment by medicine and an individual with hearing loss who is able to control his condition through use of a hearing aid are considered to use these measure to mitigate their disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (App.). These examples are analogous to plaintiffs use of contact lenses.

The Appendix to § 1630.2(h) requires disability to be determined without considering ameliorative devices such as hearing aids.

Shiflett v. Ge Fanuc Automation Corp. · filed 1997-04-21(h)

This argument runs up against applicable EEOC regulations, which provide that disability must be determined without regard to ameliorative devices; the EEOC appendix offers the example of hearing aids as assis-tive devices which should not be taken into account when determining whether a person with hearing loss suffers from a disability that substantially limits major life functions.

In determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the impairment must be evaluated without regard to mitigating measures such as medication or assistive or prosthetic devices.

Sherback v. Wright Automotive Group · filed 1997-12-12(h), (j)

Similarly, although our Court of Appeals has not addressed the specific regulations at issue herein, this Court gives substantial deference to and will adopt the EEOC guidelines with respect to “mitigating measures such as medicines, assistive or prosthetic devices” and their role in the determination of disability.

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be assessed without considering mitigating measures such as medication or assistive devices.

Gilday v. Mecosta County · filed 1997-10-30(j)

Because the EEOC's position is consistent with the text of the statute and finds compelling support in the logic and legislative history of the ADA, the existence of mitigating measures should not be taken into account when deciding whether a disability exists.