29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Johnson-Luster v. Secretary of the Army · filed 2022-03-14(o)(1)

Reasonable accommodations are “[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1).

Section 1630.2(o) permits reallocating nonessential marginal duties as a reasonable accommodation but generally does not require changing a job's essential functions.

Buckmaster v. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation · filed 2022-04-11(o)

The term “reasonable accommodation” encompasses “[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 . . . to perform the essential functions of that position.” EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, 616 F. App’x 588, 593 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)) (alterations in original). A requested accommodation may be found reasonable if it involves “reallocating or redistributing nonessential, marginal job functions,” id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)), but will generally be unreasonable if it would require the employer to “reallocate job duties in order to change the essential functions of a job,” Shin, 369 F. App’x at 482 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). ... Buckmaster’s request for a second trainer is unreasonable, as the ADA does not compel employers to “hire an additional person to perform an essential function of a disabled employee’s position.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or how a position is performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Leibas v. Dart · filed 2022-03-31(o)(1)(ii)

Reasonable accommodations are “[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 [a qualified] individual with a disability . . . to perform the essential functions of that position.” Reeves ex rel. Reeves v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 759 F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as an adjustment to the job or surrounding circumstances that enables a disabled but otherwise qualified individual to perform the position's essential functions.

Allen v. USPS · filed 2022-07-01(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is an adjustment to the job or surrounding circumstances that enables a disabled but otherwise qualified individual “to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or manner of performing a position that enables an individual with a disability to perform the position’s essential functions.

Crews-Sanchez v. Frito-Lay, Inc. · filed 2022-07-15(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is a “[m]odification[ ] or adjustment[ ] 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 … to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Here, Plaintiff’s requested accommodation of being allowed to work from home (see Dkt. 27-17), was plainly not reasonable because, according to her own testimony, she would not have been able to accomplish numerous essential job duties and key responsibilities, as well as numerous other of her responsibilities listed above, all of which she testified required her to be on-site. ... In any event, even if Plaintiff’s request to work from home were reasonable—and it was not, for the reasons stated—Frito-Lay still would not have been required to grant such accommodation because it would have rendered Plaintiff unable to perform many essential functions of her position. See Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 581.

Section 1630.2(o)(2) recognizes job restructuring as a reasonable accommodation, including restructuring that removes duties that are not essential functions.

Timethia Brown v. Advanced Concept Innovations, LLC · filed 2022-10-27(o)(2)

Reasonable accommodations may include job restructuring, modified work schedules, or reassignment to a vacant position. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2). ... So if being in the production area was not an essential function, the jury reasonably could have found that a reasonable accommodation included restructuring of the position to exclude those duties. See Lewis, 257 F.3d at 1260 (“[T]he ADA may require an employer to restructure a particular job by altering or eliminating some of its marginal functions.”).

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Williams v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-30(o)(1)

Plaintiff alleges no facts showing that she needed the accommodation that she requested – reduction to part-time status – to perform the essential functions of her job. It appears that she only requested such an accommodation in order to continue to receive SSDI and Medicare benefits. (ECF 5, at 31, 48, 51.) Thus, such a request, in the Rehabilitation Act context, was not for a reasonable accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1) (“The term reasonable accommodation means . . . (ii) Modifications 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; or (iii) Modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.”) (emphasis added).

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges, and the accommodation must be effective.

Abdelsayed v. New York University · filed 2023-07-24(o)(1)

“A reasonable accommodation is one that ‘enables an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position . . . or to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.’” Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)). A reasonable accommodation can “take many forms, but it must be effective.” ... Since these emergency procedures generally necessitate that the gastroenterologist be able to stand as needed, (id.), an accommodation that disturbs Plaintiff’s ability to comply is not reasonable in the hospital setting. ... I find that the evidence in the record could not “reasonably support a jury’s verdict” that Plaintiff’s proposed accommodations were reasonable, and that the proposed accommodations would not create an undue hardship for Defendants and their hospital.

Section 1630.2(o) requires an employer to provide an effective reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual’s known disability-related limitations unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

Meyers v. Department of the Air Force · filed 2023-08-15(o)

The regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) implementing the statute require an agency to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can sho w that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. ... A reasonable accommodation must be an effective accommodation, i.e. , one that allows the employee to perform the essential functions of her position.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments to the work environment or the manner or circumstances of work that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions; requesting such an accommodation is protected activity only when it is for someone with a disability.

Girasole v. Caliber Home Loans Inc · filed 2023-08-21(o)(1)(ii)

The EEOC regulations promulgated to implement the ADA say that “the term reasonable accommodation” includes “[m]odifications or adjustments to 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) (emphasis added). ... requesting a reasonable accommodation is only protected activity when undertaken on behalf of someone with a disability.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) describes a reasonable accommodation as an adjustment to the work environment or to how the job is performed that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the job's essential functions.

Barker v. McFerran · filed 2023-10-18(o)(1)(ii)

“In order to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate a disability, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled; (2) she is a qualified individual, meaning that she could meet the essential requirements of the position with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) a reasonable accommodation is possible. ... work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim appears to be based on her allegations that she requested an ergonomic chair and was not provided with one until 2015. ... Defendant offers no authority that Plaintiff was required to notify her supervisors that she did not receive the chair even after it was approved and does not make any other arguments in favor of dismissal of this claim. The motion to dismiss the failure to accommodate claim as inadequately pleaded is denied.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position; it does not categorically require eliminating a nonessential function, and reasonableness depends on the circumstances.

Tartaro-McGowan v. Inova Home Health, LLC · filed 2024-01-17(o)(1)(ii)

This view of “reasonable accommodation” is consistent with the ADA’s implementing regulations, which similarly define that term broadly: “Modifications 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). ... Put simply, that is not the law. ... But we have never held—and Tartaro-McGowan cites no case that says—that an employer must always reallocate nonessential job functions in order for a given accommodation to be reasonable. ... And we will not do so now.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as changes to the work environment or to how a job is performed that enable a qualified person with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Barker v. McFerran · filed 2024-05-06(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Clauser v. Sunrise ABA, LLC · filed 2024-05-08(o)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is defined, in relevant part, as “modifications 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)(ii). ... At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that a specialist career coach – even one on the employer’s dime – cannot constitute a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Subsection (o)(1)(ii) treats as a reasonable accommodation an adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Sorensen v. Wallingford Board of Education · filed 2024-07-30(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation “enable[s] an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of [his] position . . . [or] to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as [they] are enjoyed by [the employer’s] other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), (iii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) includes accommodations that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, even when the employee can perform the job's essential functions without an accommodation.

Herbert v. KC Robotics, Inc. · filed 2024-08-21(o)(1)(iii)

In this case, plaintiff alleges he requested an accommodation for his hearing impairment—that his instructions be typed or written to help him better understand the directions—which KCR denied. (Doc. 1 at PAGEID 9, ¶ 113). The fact that plaintiff had been able to perform the essential functions of his job without an accommodation does not necessarily mean plaintiff was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by . . . similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). The Court determines that the defense raised by KCR is not well-taken and does not defeat plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim in this case.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or to how a position is performed that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position’s essential functions.

BRINK v. XE HOLDING, LLC · filed 2024-08-26(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is a modification or adjustment to a person’s “work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable[s] an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)).

Subsection (o)(1) treats a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered or an individual with a disability to perform essential functions.

Daniels v. Notre Dame University · filed 2024-09-30(o)(1)

As Defendant argues, being allowed to attend school is not a request for an “accommodation” since it is not a requested “modification or adjustment” to the application process or school environment “that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered for the position” or “enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1).

A reasonable accommodation is evaluated by whether it enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions, and reasonableness is assessed in light of the individual's condition rather than accommodations given to nondisabled employees.

Downey v. New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities · filed 2024-10-25

The reasonableness of an accommodation depends on whether it enables the disabled individual “to perform the essential functions of that position.” Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2). Whether Defendant’s proposed accommodations were reasonable must be evaluated in the context of Plaintiff’s condition, not the accommodations provided to non-disability employees.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation as workplace modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified person with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Overstreet v. United Parcel Service · filed 2025-01-10(o)

A reasonable accommodation includes “modifications 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” to perform the essential functions of that position” or “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.”

A reasonable accommodation can be a modification or adjustment to the work environment, how a position is customarily performed, or the job application process.

Issacsen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-09(o)(1)

In the ADA context, reasonable accommodations are “modifications or adjustments” to the “work environment,” “the manner or circumstances under which the position . . . is customarily performed,” or the job application process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1). The bar on considering accommodations is not a bar on including limitations in the RFC which could also be accommodations.

Section 1630.2(o) recognizes that time off can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Bassett v. Truveta, Inc. · filed 2025-08-25(o)

Bassett alleges that she was qualified to perform her job with the reasonable accommodation of the time off she requested in December 2022. Time off may be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. See Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). Although Simonov granted Bassett’s request, Truveta terminated Bassett’s employment four days later, and 11 days before her time off was scheduled to begin.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position and enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Milner-Koonce v. Albany City School District · filed 2025-09-30(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is one that “enable[s] an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position… to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), (iii).

Section 1630.2(o) limits reasonable accommodations to job-related adjustments or modifications; an employer need not pay for an employee’s therapy.

Howell v. Washoe County · filed 2025-03-24(o)

Thus, review of the statutory text and promulgated regulations shows the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations extends to job-related adjustments or modifications. ... Therefore, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot proceed on a claim that Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation by failing to pay for her EMDR therapy.

Reasonable accommodation may include job restructuring or reassignment to a vacant position, but does not require eliminating essential job functions.

McDonald v. STATE OF KS, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 1995-02-02(o)(2)

While reasonable accommodation may include such adjustments as “some job restructuring” or reassignment to a vacant position, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2), reasonable accommodation does not mean elimination of any of the job’s essential functions.

Section 1630.2(o)’s interpretive guidance identifies accrued paid leave and additional unpaid leave as possible accommodations; reasonable accommodation does not require unscheduled paid leave.

Myers v. Mitchell L. Hose, Director of Personnel Frederick County Board of Commissioners · filed 1995-03-29(o)

The interpretive guidelines for the ADA reinforce the conclusion that reasonable accommodation does not include unscheduled paid leave. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) (Appendix) (“[O]ther accommodations could include permitting the use of accrued paid leave or providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment ....”) (emphasis added).

Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to waive or reallocate an essential job function.

Haysman v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 1995-07-18(o)

However, an employer is not required to waive an essential function of a job or to reallocate those functions.

Section 1630.2(o)(1) describes reasonable accommodations without limiting them to the accommodations it lists.

Lyons v. The Legal Aid Society · filed 1995-10-30(o)(1)

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii) and (iii) (1995). This description too is nonexclusive.

A reasonable accommodation must effectively address the employee’s disability-related job difficulties and provide an equal opportunity to perform.

Bryant v. Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland, Inc. · filed 1996-04-04(o)(1)

Accordingly, the “reasonable accommodation” question asks whether the accommodation: (1) would be “effective,” i.e., would it address the job-related difficulties presented by the employee’s disability, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(i)-(ii); and (2) would allow the employee to attain an “equal” level of achievement, opportunity and participation, that a non-disabled individual in the same position would be able to achieve, id. § 1630.2(o)(l)(iii).

Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to eliminate or reallocate a position’s essential functions.

Newman v. Chevron U.S.A. · filed 1997-10-07(o)

Moreover, the ADA does not require an employer to eliminate or reallocate essential functions of a position in order to provide accommodation.

A reasonable accommodation must enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. · filed 1998-07-14(o)(2)(ii)

An "accommodation" is "reasonable"—and, therefore, required under the ADA—only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

A reasonable accommodation must enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job; a service dog unnecessary for those functions is not a required accommodation.

Schultz v. Alticor/Amway Corp. · filed 2001-11-01(o)(1)(ii)

The “reasonable accommodation” must enable the individual to perform the “essential functions” of that position. ... He has failed to make out an adequate claim for denial of reasonable accommodation because his service dog is not necessary in carrying out the essential functions of his job.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) includes adjustments that give employees with disabilities equal benefits and privileges of employment, even when they can perform their jobs without the adjustments.

Sturz v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2009-07-21(o)(1)(iii)

Reasonable accommodations include more than just things that are medically necessary. ... More generally, they include “[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(iii) (emphasis added). ... That is more than sufficient; plaintiff did not have to show it was physically impossible to do her job before defendant was obligated to provide her with an accommodation.

A reasonable accommodation enables a disabled employee to perform essential job functions; a preference for a particular position does not qualify.

Williams v. Brunswick County Board of Education · filed 2010-07-02(o)(1)(ii)

Second, and in any event, a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA is a modification or adjustment that enables a person with a “disability” to perform the essential functions of the job. ... Here, the record demonstrates that Williams could perform both as Director of Pre-K and Student Services and as Dean of Students at Shallotte Middle School. She simply preferred the Director position. Such personal preference is not a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.

Reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to provide medical treatment to restore an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions.

Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. · filed 2010-09-10(o)(1)

Nothing in the text of the ADA or in the regulations promulgated thereunder contemplate that an employer should be required to provide a disabled employee with medical treatment in order to restore her ability to perform essential job functions.

A reasonable accommodation enables a qualified employee to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits; whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable depends on the facts.

Berger v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't · filed 2018-03-30(o)(1)

As a result, because I can neither find that there are undisputed facts establishing that the Defendants' proposed accommodations were "plainly reasonable," nor that Plaintiff failed to identify a facially reasonable accommodation, I deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to this issue.

Section 1630.2(o) allows an accommodation that changes how or when an employee performs essential job functions while preserving equal job opportunities.

Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland · filed 2018-11-21(o)

Reasonable accommodations must enable an employee with a disability to perform essential job functions and to enjoy equal job privileges. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... First, the County’s restructuring of Reyazuddin’s job was a reasonable accommodation. ... Because the County’s accommodations do not change her job, they are acceptable alterations to when and how Reyazuddin performs an essential function.

Section 1630.2(p)(1) permits an employer to choose among reasonable accommodations and does not require it to provide the employee’s preferred or best possible accommodation.

Selenke v. Radiology Imaging · filed 2001-05-10(p)(1)

However, an employer is not required to always provide the employee with the best possible accommodations or in the specific manner the employee requested. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(1). It has broad discretion in determining which alternative accommodation should be provided. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9.

A person is substantially limited in walking when significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration of walking compared with the average person, even if not totally unable to walk.

Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice · filed 2004-10-15(j)

A person need not be totally unable to walk to be “disab[led]” under section 12102(2)(A) of the ADA; she need only be significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration of her walking as compared to that of the average person in the general population.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting under the stated major-life-activity test and defines essential job functions using factors including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Ward v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2001-04-19(j)(1), (j)(2), (n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3), (n)(3)(ii), (n)(3)(iv)

Here, Ward’s impairment permanently restricts him both from reaching overhead on a repetitive basis and from lifting any object greater than two pounds over his head. The Court concludes that this impairment is substantially limiting on its face. ... Applying these factors to the present case, the Court finds that, at a minimum, Ward has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether lifting the trailer doors is an essential function of the job of loss prevention officer at a Wal-Mart distribution center.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation to include adjustments enabling a qualified individual to perform essential job functions, enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges, and participate in an interactive process identifying limitations and potential accommodations; it does not require adjustments merely to improve performance.

Roloff v. SAP AMERICA, INC. · filed 2006-05-26(o)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(iii), (o)(3)

Defendant is required by law to provide reasonable accommodation to allow plaintiff to perform the essential functions of his job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... In addition to providing reasonable accommodation to ensure employees can perform the essential functions of their job, employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodation to ensure employees have access to the “equal benefits and privileges of employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). ... However, assuming that the “wish list” was a valid request for reasonable accommodation, the law does not support plaintiffs argument that defendant must provide reasonable accommodations to improve plaintiffs performance.

A reasonable accommodation is a workplace change that enables an employee with a disability to participate equally; it need not be the employee’s preferred accommodation, and the employer and employee must engage in an interactive process to identify an appropriate accommodation.

Meyer v. Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc. · filed 2001-05-21(o)(2)(ii), (o)(1)(iii), (o)(3)

First, the court agrees with IMT that Meyer is not entitled to whatever accommodations he desired, but only to “reasonable” accommodations. ... “An accommodation is simply some change or modification in the work environment which allows an individual with a disability to participate on an equal footing with non-disabled employees.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(iii). ... Moreover, both parties are obligated to engage in an “interactive process” to determine what accommodations are available and reasonable.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(i) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Hatchett v. Philander Smith · filed 2001-06-01(o)(1)(i)

A reasonable accommodation is one which enables a individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(i). ... The accommodation requested by Hatchett does not enable her to perform the essential functions of the job.

The regulation treats modifications to workplace facilities as a form of reasonable accommodation that an employer may be required to provide to a qualified employee with a disability.

International Data v. Commission on Human, No. Cv 00 0503421 (Jul. 20, 2001) · filed 2001-07-20(o)

The employer must provide a reasonable accommodation. ... The court agrees with the conclusion of the human rights referee that the plaintiff was obliged to make the changes to the facilities. (ROR, Volume I, Item 1, p. 29, citing Worthington v. City of New Haven, United States District Court, Docket No. 3:94-CV-00609 (D.Conn. October 5, 1999)); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (o).

Section 1630.2(o) recognizes additional unpaid leave for necessary medical treatment as a possible reasonable accommodation.

Wilson v. Lemington Home for the Aged · filed 2001-06-25(o)

The EEOC interpretive guidance to the ADA states that a reasonable accommodation could include “additional unpaid leave for necessary medical treatment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... Since, it is undisputed that Plaintiff requested a medical leave of absence on December 11, 1997, there remains a genuine issue as to whether Plaintiffs request for medical leave constitutes a reasonable accommodation in this case under the ADA. As a result, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III is denied.

The regulation defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Schlapia v. Daley · filed 1997-03-28(o)(l)(ii)

Thus, in focusing on the issue of whether Defendant’s offer of accommodation was “reasonable,” the Court must consider whether the accommodation: “(1) would be ‘effective,’ i.e., would it address the job-related difficulties presented by the employee’s disability; and (2) would allow the employee to attain an ‘equal’ level of achievement, opportunity and participation, that a non-disabled individual in the same position would be able to achieve.”

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) treats an accommodation as reasonable only when it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

Willis v. Conopco, Inc., A.K.A. Lever Brothers Company, A.K.A. Unilever · filed 1997-03-25(o)(ii)

An “accommodation” is “reasonable” — and, therefore, required under the ADA — only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of her job. 29 C.F.E. § 1630.2(o)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o) recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation, but does not require assigning others to perform substantial essential functions or creating a light-duty position.

Hershey v. Praxair, Inc. · filed 1997-07-11(o)

Reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; reassignment to a vacant position; acquisition or modifications of equipment or devices; appropriate adjustments or modification of examinations, training materials or polices; or the provision of readers or interpreters. ... The Court finds that it is not a reasonable accommodation to assign a Technician Helper to assist Plaintiff in the performance of the essential functions of his job. ... For the accommodation of a reassignment to be reasonable, however, a position must first exist and be vacant. ... Nor is Defendant obligated to create light duty positions to accommodate disabled employees. ... Therefore, the Court finds that reassignment to some theoretical light duty clerical position is not a reasonable accommodation.

A reasonable accommodation enables an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as employees without disabilities.

Rick Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., a California Corporation · filed 1997-10-28(o)(l)(iii)

A reasonable accommodation is one that would “enable the [employer’s] employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(iii). ... We therefore hold that Summers has not demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether Teichert reasonably accommodated his alleged disability.

An accommodation is reasonable only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

Zillyette v. Capital One Financial Corp. · filed 1998-02-13(o)(ii)

An “ ‘accommodation’ is ‘reasonable’ — and, therefore, required under the ADA-only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of her job.”

Section 1630.2(o)(2) recognizes that reasonable accommodation may include additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment.

Lance v. University of Tennessee · filed 1999-01-29(o)(2)

However, as 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 explains, accommodations could include permitting the use of accrued paid leave or providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment.

Section 1630.2(o) permits medical leave to serve as a reasonable accommodation in appropriate circumstances, but the accommodation duty arises only if the employee would thereby be presently qualified to perform the job.

Winifred Browning v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 1999-06-02(o)

This is not to say that a medical leave of absence cannot be a reasonable accommodation under the appropriate circumstances. See Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 87 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir.1996); 29 C.F .R. § 1630.2(o) App. However, the duty to accommodate does not arise unless the employee will be presently qualified if afforded the accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Hall v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2005-01-25(o)(1)(ii)

Reasonable accommodation is defined as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position ... held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o) treats a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits, so an ineffective change does not qualify.

Edwards v. Agency · filed 2006-10-18(o)

The three explanations of the term “reasonable accommodation” found at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) limit that term to those “[m’Jodifications or adjustments” that “enable” a disabled employee to be considered for another position, “to perform the essential functions of’ his or her current or desired position, or “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” ... Changes that are not effective do not qualify as “reasonable accommodations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(2) defines reasonable accommodation as changes to the work environment or job circumstances that enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Reifer v. Colonial Intermediate Unit 20 · filed 2006-11-07(o)(2)

“Reasonable accommodation,” as pertinent here, requires an employer to make “[mjodifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.”

Section 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes job restructuring, modified work schedules, equipment changes, and reassignment as possible reasonable accommodations enabling a disabled employee to perform essential job functions.

Dicksey v. New Hanover County Sheriff's Department · filed 2007-09-17(o)(2)(ii)

Under the ADA, an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations that will enable a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of his job. Reasonable accommodation may-include job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment, or reassignment to another position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii).

Section 1630.2(g) defines disability to include a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Siaca v. Autoridad De Acueductos Y Alcantarillados De Puerto Rico · filed 2001-07-31(g)

The EEOC has issued regulations to provide additional guidance regarding the proper interpretation of the term “major life activity.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(g) (1998). The EEOC regulations define the three elements of disability: (1) physical or mental impairment, (2) substantially limits, and (3) major life activities. ... Finally, “[m]ajor [l]ife [activities means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” § 1630.2(i) (emphasis ours). Plaintiff avers suffering from “continuous nasal congestion, hyperemia, throat granules, sinus pains, being nodale, chronic sinusitis, rhnogaringetis, respiratory and skins problems.” (Docket No. 7). Hence, the Court concludes that plaintiff has established that he suffers a physical impairment affecting his respiratory system and/or a disability affecting the major life activity of “breathing.”

Section 1630.2 defines major life activities, substantial limitation, record of disability, and regarded-as disability; under the pre-2009 standard applied here, Nyrop’s transient and minimally limiting impairments did not satisfy those criteria.

Nyrop v. Independent School District No. 11 · filed 2010-08-04(i), (j)(1)-(2), (k), and (l)

“Major Life Activities means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” ... “Substantially limits” means one is: ... To determine whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, we consider: “(i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” ... We accept as true Nyrop’s MS-related impairments and physical symptoms; however, like the district court, we conclude Nyrop has failed to demonstrate her physical impairments substantially limit any major life activity. Because Nyrop has not made this showing, we find she does not have a disability as defined by the ADA. ... In order to show she has a record of disability, Nyrop must establish she “has a history of . . . [a] physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k). ... We accept as true Nyrop’s history of claimed physical impairments, but this claim fails for the same reason as her actual disability claim. Nyrop has not shown her physical impairments substantially limit a major life activity. ... To show the School District regarded Nyrop as disabled, Nyrop must prove she: ... (1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities 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 [covered] impairments . . . but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. ... We conclude Nyrop has failed to present a question of material fact precluding summary judgment on her regarded-as-disabled claim.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation to include adjustments to the application process, work environment, or employment benefits that enable a qualified person with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal benefits; § 1630.2(p) excludes accommodations imposing undue hardship based on cost, resources, and the entity’s operations.

Umholtz v. Kansas, Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services · filed 2013-02-20(o), (p)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined in federal regulations as: ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). The regulations do not mandate a reasonable accommodation which requires “undue hardship” after a consideration of cost, financial resources, and the operation of the entity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p). These regulations apply to the ADA, but ADA standards are applied to Rehabilitation Act claims.

Section 1630.2(o)(1) recognizes three categories of reasonable accommodation, so an accommodation need not facilitate the essential functions of the employee’s position.

Feist v. Louisiana, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General · filed 2013-09-16(o)(1)

Thus, a modification that enables an individual to perform the essential functions of a position is only one of three categories of reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines reasonable accommodation in three categories, so an accommodation need not enable performance of an essential job function.

Feist v. State of Louisiana · filed 2013-09-18(o)(1)

Thus, a modification that enables an individual to perform the essential functions of a position is only one of three categories of reasonable accommodation.

The regulation defines a reasonable accommodation as a work modification that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions, and the court held that whether a swivel chair met that standard presented a genuine factual dispute.

Dones v. Donahoe · filed 2013-12-12(o)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable accommodations” are “[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 a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(l)(ii). ... Based on the evidence provided, the use of a swivel chair to perform the functions of a mail processor could be a reasonable accommodation for an employee with Cervicalgia such that summary judgment for Defendant is not proper.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Howard v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2015-03-31(o)

“Reasonable accommodations” are “[modifications or adjustments that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position; or ... to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by [an employer’s] other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... The Court here finds that the accommodations that UPS provided were reasonable as a matter of law. ... These modifications were reasonable in light of the requirement of the full-time driver position, in which plaintiff would be expected to be able to communicate effectively with customers, the public, and law enforcement without the aid of an ASL interpreter. In the specific factual context of this case, these accommodations were reasonable as a matter of law.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats a change in how an employee performs work as a reasonable accommodation when it enables the employee to perform the position's essential functions.

Fushikoshi v. Department of Agriculture · filed 2015-10-29(o)(1)(ii)

His requested accommodation of a flexible start time would require other employees to perform his duties for him to maintain on-time aircraft departures and, accordingly, would not be reasonable. See IAF, Tab 57 at 26; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (defining a reasonable accommodation to include a modification to the manner in which an employee performs work that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the position).

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation to include changes such as accessible facilities, job restructuring, modified schedules, reassignment, and equipment or policy modifications, but it does not require an employer to excuse past misconduct.

Dewitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 2017-01-18(o)

The ADAAA defines “reasonable accommodation” to include: (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(A)–(B); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... Such retroactive leniency is not a “reasonable accommodation” as defined by the ADAAA.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or the manner or circumstances of work that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions; ordinary entitled breaks are not such accommodations.

Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2017-03-06(o)(1)(ii)

The March break incidents cannot be construed as requests for accommodations. The breaks Fox sought where benefits to which he was entitled. They were not “Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position ... is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats modifications or adjustments to the work environment or to how a position is customarily performed as reasonable accommodations when they enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position’s essential functions.

Best v. Duane Reade, Inc. · filed 2018-03-22(o)(1)(ii)

Such reassignment or “job restructuring” may be considered a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (reasonable accommodations 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”); see also Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 187 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The ADA lists reassignment to an existing, vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation.”)

The regulation defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified person with a disability to perform the job's essential functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Lambert v. Trump Int'l Hotel & Tower · filed 2018-03-31

"A reasonable accommodation is one that 'enables an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position ... or to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.'"

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) recognizes that a reasonable accommodation may involve a modification or adjustment that enables an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of a job, but does not require the employer to provide the employee's preferred accommodation.

Morris-Huse v. GEICO · filed 2018-09-26(o)(1)(ii)

Notably, an individual seeking accommodation is not necessarily entitled to the accommodation of her choice, but rather is entitled only to a reasonable accommodation. Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1) treats modifications enabling an employee with a disability to enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges as reasonable accommodations, while subsection (o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process between employer and employee to craft one.

Stokes v. Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary · filed 2018-10-05(o)(1), (o)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations define reasonable accommodations as, inter alia: “Modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1). ... Applying the correct legal standard and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Stokes, a reasonable jury could find that the requested meeting materials were a reasonable accommodation. ... The district court further erred by relying on Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc. to conclude that DHS was alternatively not liable because its failure to provide the requested meeting materials was caused by Stokes’s failure to “engage in the interactive process.” See 178 F.3d 731 (5th Cir 1999). Loulseged notes that, after an employee has requested an accommodation, “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process [with the employee] . . . in order to craft a reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 735 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)) (first alteration in original). Because “the interactive process requires the input of the employee as well as the employer . . . . an employer cannot be found to have violated the ADA when responsibility for the breakdown of the informal, interactive process is traceable to the employee and not the employer.” Id. (cleaned up). ... Here, in contrast, Stokes offered evidence that she repeatedly requested the specific accommodation, was assured it would be provided, and then did not receive it on multiple occasions. A reasonable jury could certainly conclude that any “breakdown” of the interactive process was not caused by Stokes.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position; an effective accommodation need not be the employee’s preferred one.

Hazelwood v. Highland Hospital · filed 2019-02-28(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation “enable[s] 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). Employers are not required to provide an accommodation that the employee prefers—all that is required is that the employer provide an effective accommodation. Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400 (2002)). Highland provided Hazelwood with an effective accommodation by having her co-workers and supervisors relay, on Hazelwood’s behalf, critical test results to requesting physicians. Hazelwood concedes the accommodation allowed her to fulfill her job duties and provides no evidence to suggest any of those test results were not relayed to physicians or were delayed beyond the requisite time frame for delivering them.

A reasonable accommodation includes modifications or adjustments to the work environment or work circumstances that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Garcia v. Salvation Army · filed 2019-03-18(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” includes “[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). Obtaining a copy of a year-old client complaint is unrelated to the “essential functions” of Garcia’s former position.

A reasonable accommodation modifies the work environment or how a position is customarily performed so a disabled employee can perform its essential functions, but an employer need not provide an accommodation that imposes undue hardship.

Wilson v. Textron Aviation, Inc. · filed 2019-07-11(o)(ii), (p)

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enables a ... disabled individual to perform the essential functions of that job. ... However, an employer is not required to implement an accommodation that requires “undue hardship” after consideration of cost, financial resources, and other business operations.

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the work environment or to how a position is customarily performed that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Zblewska v. Wilkie · filed 2019-07-29(o)(1)(ii)

The Code of Federal Regulations defines a reasonable accommodation under the ADA 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); see also Preddie v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 806, 813 (7th Cir. 2015).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or the way a position is performed that enables a person with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Curtis v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-08-12(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is a “[m]odification[ ] or adjustment[ ] 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 . . . to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or to how a position is performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Torzewski v. COSCO Shipping Lines North America, Inc. · filed 2019-09-27(o)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is defined, in relevant part, as “modifications 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)(ii). Reasonable accommodations include: “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices ... and other similar accommodations[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). As discussed above, it is plausible that allowing Torzewski to work from Chicago, where he had access to his medical providers and support group, would have allowed Torzewski to perform the essential functions of his position.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, without requiring prevention or a significant or severe restriction; § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position.

Evans v. Nashville Film Institute, LLC · filed 2022-07-06(j)(1)(ii), (n)(1)

The regulations define a “substantially limiting” impairment as one that “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); see also Hostettler, 895 F.3d at 854. “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)). ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds it clear that Evans’s occasional failure to understand social cues, as he and Tabb allege, does not substantially impact his major life activity of interacting with others. ... Essential functions are “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (2010). ... As discussed above, the parties present conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s interactions with others. The plaintiff has clearly demonstrated the existence of a material factual dispute as to whether he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) makes the substantially-limits standard non-demanding, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ZOE CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT HEALTH, LLC · filed 2025-06-27(j)(1)(i) (n)(1)

In explaining the definition of disability under the ADA, the EEOC’s regulations state that the “substantially limits” standard is not meant to be a “demanding” one. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... The EEOC’s medical evidence thus stands unrebutted. It establishes, at a minimum, that Caldwell had mental impairments of PTSD and major depressive disorder and that those impairments substantially limited Caldwell’s brain function as compared to most people in the general population. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the EEOC established, as a matter of law, that Caldwell had a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. ... “[E]ssential functions” are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). “Whether a function is essential is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors.”

The regulation directs courts to assess essential functions using listed job-related factors, and an accommodation need not be provided if it would require other employees to work harder.

Hinson v. USD No. 500 · filed 2002-01-24(n)(1), (n)(2)-(3), (p)(2)(v)

The record shows that defendant actually requires its custodial employees to perform the functions that the employer asserts are essential, including dumping the trash, moving the bleachers, and mopping the floor. These functions bear more than a marginal relationship to the job at issue, and require a custodian to routinely handle loads weighing up to 50 pounds. ... For that matter, an accommodation that would result in other employees having to work harder is not required.

Section 1630.2 identifies essential functions as fundamental job duties, permits consideration of written job descriptions, the employer’s judgment, and staffing limits, and recognizes job modification and reassignment as forms of reasonable accommodation.

Heffern v. Willis-Knighton · filed 1997-09-19(n)(3), (n)(2)(ii), (o)

According to the EEOC regulations promulgated to implement the ADA, the essential functions of a job are those that are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (1997). Along with other factors, the regulations indicate that “[w]ritten job descriptions” prepared prior to advertising or interviewing applicants and “the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential” may be considered. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Although it may be true that the positions of nurse and cardiac coordinator can be severed, the EEOC regulations promulgated to implement the ADA specify that a “function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(2)(ii) (1997). ... Often, reasonable accommodation refers to the modification of the job description or of the work environment in such a way as to allow the disabled individual to perform the essential function at issue. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) (1997). ... The EEOC guidelines indicate that reasonable accommodation also may include “reassignment to a vacant position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (1997).

An employer must provide a reasonable accommodation when it enables an employee with a disability to perform an essential job function rather than eliminating that function.

Young v. Central Square Central School District · filed 2002-07-25(o)(1)(ii)

However, if rather than eliminating an essential function of the job, an accommodation merely permits the individual with a disability to perform that function, then the employer has an obligation to provide that accommodation as long as it is reasonable.

Section 1630.2(o) does not require an accommodation that shifts an employee’s essential duties to coworkers or changes the essential functions of the position.

Rodal v. Anesthesia Group of Onondaga, P.C. · filed 2003-03-18(o)

Furthermore, granting plaintiffs request for exemption from night call and weekend coverage would require the Group to relocate job' duties to other employees in order to change essential functions of the position. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). An accommodation that would result in other employees having to work harder or longer is not required under the ADA.

Section 1630.2(o) recognizes reasonable accommodation, including reassignment, but does not require an employer to reallocate essential job functions to others.

Nagel v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2005-08-25(o)

However, the regulations interpreting the ADA warn that “[a]n employer ... is not required to relocate essential functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630, App. 1630.2(o). ... Based on the undisputed job description, there is little doubt that reading is an essential job function of a CST. Under the current state of the law, Sykes is under no obligation to reallocate Nagel’s duty to read. Such an accommodation is unreasonable.

The regulation treats essential functions as a position’s fundamental, not marginal, duties and directs a case-by-case inquiry using listed factors; reasonable accommodations may include restructuring, modified schedules, equipment changes, or reassignment.

Boone v. Rumsfeld · filed 2006-03-06(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)

"Essential functions" are defined as the fundamental duties of a position, rather than its marginal functions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). The issue of whether a particular job duty is an essential function involves a factual inquiry to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. ... The ADA regulations catalogue seven factors to consider in deciding whether a function is essential to a particular job. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Reasonable accommodations may include job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, and reassignment to another position. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o); Talavera v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 129 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir. 1997). ... In light of this evidence, a genuine issue of fact exists as to the essential functions of an HMER at the time when Boone was terminated from his position. The district court erred by deciding this material factual issue in favor of DOD on summary judgment.

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties, requires consideration of the employer’s judgment and the time spent performing a function, and recognizes job restructuring by reallocating nonessential functions as a possible reasonable accommodation.

Dark v. Curry County · filed 2006-07-05(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)(2)(ii)

The term “essential functions” refers to the “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” It does not “include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (requiring consideration of the amount of time spent performing the function). ... [17] Regulations under the ADA provide that “job restructuring” may be a “reasonable accommodation” required of the employer. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). ... [18] The ADA does not require an employer to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees. See 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, App. (“An employer or other covered entity may restructure a job by reallocating or redistributing nonessential, marginal job functions.”); Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2001). The County thus need not restructure Dark’s position by exempting him from the essential duty of operating heavy machinery. Dark has not shown job restructuring was an available option.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes an interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential accommodations, while §§ 1630.2(n)(2) and (n)(3) identify reasons a function may be essential and evidence relevant to that determination.

Johnson v. McGraw-Hill Companies · filed 2006-09-05(o)(3), (n)(2), (n)(3)

Nevertheless, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) states as follows: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” ... “A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function; (ii) The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or (iii) The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.” ... “Evidence of whether a particular function is essential might include, but is not limited to: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” ... After a thorough review of the evidence presented by the parties, the Court is convinced that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the functions described by McGraw-Hill are essential functions of a sales representative position, whether the accommodations proposed by Johnson were “reasonable” within the meaning of the ADA, and whether McGraw-Hill’s participation in the interactive process was conducted in good faith.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines an essential function as a fundamental duty rather than a marginal one, while § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats as a reasonable accommodation a workplace or performance adjustment that enables a qualified individual to perform essential functions.

Barnhart v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2006-11-03(n)(1), (o)(1)(ii)

An essential function of a position is a fundamental duty of the “employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,” and “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Evidence of whether a particular function is essential can include the employer’s judgment, the written job descriptions, and the consequences of not requiring the individual to perform the function. Id. A reasonable accommodation includes “[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 a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Because of his hearing impairment, Barnhart cannot perform this function of the Loss Prevention Association position. ... Because it would not permit Barnhart to perform an essential function of the position, the Sidekick is not a reasonable accommodation.

Subsection (o)(ii) includes modifications or adjustments to the work environment or the manner or circumstances of work that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job.

Novella v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2007-03-19(o)(ii)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations define the term “reasonable accommodation” to include both modifications that enable an employee to “perform the essential functions” of the job, and modifications that enable an employee to “enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of employment” as other, non-disabled employees. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii), (iii). ... In light of our earlier pronouncement in LaChance, we conclude that communication at a termination meeting, the purpose of which is to give the employee notice of his termination, is not an “essential function” of an employee’s job.

Section 1630.2 treats an accommodation as reasonable only when it enables a qualified employee to perform essential job functions, and evaluates essentiality case by case using the employer’s judgment plus listed job-related factors and nonexclusive bases.

Holly v. Clairson Industries, L.L.C. · filed 2007-07-19(o)(1)(ii), (n)(2)(i), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3)

“An accommodation is “reasonable” and necessary under the ADA, in turn, only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. ... It is by now clear that essential functions “are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.” ... Moreover, “[w]hether a function is essential is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors.” ... Thus, as we observed recently in D’Angelo, although “the employer’s view is entitled to substantial weight in the calculus,” this factor alone may not be “conclusive[].” ... According to the EEOC’s regulations implementing the ADA, other factors to be considered include: “(1) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, (2) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function, (3) the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, (4) the work experience of past incumbents in the job, and (5) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” ... In addition, the EEOC regulations identify three nonexclusive bases on which a job function may be deemed essential: “(1) the reason the position exists is to perform the function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of the job function can be distributed; and (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position was hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.”

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental duties rather than marginal ones, identifies factors for deciding whether a duty is essential, and permits reassignment as an accommodation without requiring an employer to reallocate essential functions or hire someone to perform them.

Stephenson v. Pfizer Inc. · filed 2014-09-08(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)

The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. The term ‘essential functions’ does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (2014). ... The regulations offer a non-exhaustive list of evidence relevant to determining whether a job function is essential: ... Id. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Considering the complete record, the court concludes that driving is an essential part of the job of a Pfizer sales representative in Stephenson’s territory. ... Here, the accommodations that Pfizer can be required to make under the ADA are not unlimited. Pfizer is “not required to reallocate essential functions,” such as providing an assistant to perform some of the essential functions of a legally blind employee’s job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) app. Nor is Pfizer required to hire someone to do so. ... Ultimately, the only reasonable accommodation that Pfizer could make for Stephenson is reassignment to a different position within the company. If feasible, the reassigned position should be “an equivalent position in terms of pay, status, etc.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) app. Pfizer’s proposed accommodation need not have been Stephenson’s preferred accommodation. ... The proposed position must also be vacant or set to become vacant within a reasonable amount of time, E.E.O.C. v. Sara Lee Corp., 237 F.3d 349, 355 (4th Cir.2001); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) app., and be one for which Stephenson is qualified, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) app.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a change to the work environment or how a position is performed that enables a person with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores East · filed 2015-03-03(o)(1)(ii)

Indeed, both proposed accommodations sought to modify Ms. Lang’s job description to avoid the essential functions of moving, lifting, carrying, and placing heavy merchandise and equipment, but would not have allowed her to complete these functions. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (“The term reasonable accommodation means: [m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held . . . is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability . . . to perform the essential functions of that position.”) (emphasis added). Thus, Ms. Lang is unable to establish that she was able to perform her essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions, considers factors such as time spent and consequences of nonperformance, and defines reasonable accommodation as an adjustment enabling a qualified person to perform those essential functions.

Abram v. Fulton County Government · filed 2015-01-29(n)(1), (n)(3)(iii), (o)(1)(ii)

Essential functions are the fundamental job duties of the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). They do not include marginal job functions. Id. ... Other relevant factors include the amount of time the employee spends performing the function and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii), (iv). ... A reasonable accommodation means a modification or adjustment to the work environment, or the manner or circumstances under which the work is customarily performed, that enables a qualified person to perform the essential functions of her position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... An accommodation is reasonable and necessary under the ADA only when it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of her position.

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as the fundamental rather than marginal job duties, requires a qualified individual to be able to perform those functions with or without accommodation, and recognizes reassignment to a suitable vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation.

Jakes v. Department of Defense · filed 2015-04-01(n)(1), (m), (o)(2)(ii)

The core duties of a position are synonymous with its essential functions, i.e., the fundamental job duties of the position, not including marginal functions. Id., ¶ 26 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, inter alia, the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, written position descriptions, the amount of time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function. Fox, 120 M.S.P.R. 529, ¶ 26 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... education and other job-related requirements of the employment position the individual holds or desires and, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... The appellant was entitled to be considered for reassignment to a vacant position for which she was otherwise qualified as a form of reasonable accommodation. See Gonzalez-Acosta v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶ 14 (2010); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). However, the agency’s obligation to accommodate an employee with a disability includes reassignment only to a vacant position at or below the employee’s current grade or level. Gonzalez-Acosta, 113 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶ 14; Narcum v. Department of the Interior, 98 M.S.P.R. 645, ¶ 8 (2005).

A reasonable accommodation must enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Osborne v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. · filed 2015-08-24(o)(1)(ii)

As we note above, a reasonable accommodation, by definition, must enable an employee to perform the essential functions of a position. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, while § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) lists examples of reasonable accommodations.

Garrison v. City of Tallahassee · filed 2016-11-09(n)(3), (o)(2)(ii)

Other pertinent factors to consider include (1) the amount of time the employee spends performing the function; (2) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (3) the work experience of past employees in the position; and (4) the current work experience of employees in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... A reasonable accommodation may include job-restructuring, permitting a part-time or modified work schedule, reassigning the employee to a vacant position, or acquiring or modifying equipment or devices. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). ... The district court committed no error in concluding that Garrison was unable to perform an essential function of her job -- full-time physical attendance -- and, thus, was no “qualified individual.”

Section 1630.2 treats a fundamental job duty as an essential function, recognizes that a function may be essential because the position exists to perform it, and does not require an employer to initiate an interactive process when the employee has not identified a reasonable accommodation.

Bagwell v. Morgan County Commission · filed 2017-01-18(n)(1), (n)(2), and (o)(ii)(3)

An essential function is a fundamental job duty of a position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). A function may be essential because the position exists to perform that function, a limited number of employees can perform the function, or the function is highly specialized and requires expertise. Id. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... Lastly, the regulations governing the ADA provide that, to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii)(3). However, where the employee fails to identify a reasonable accommodation, the employer has no affirmative duty to engage in an “interactive process” or to show undue hardship.

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as fundamental job duties, makes the employer’s judgment and a preexisting written job description relevant evidence rather than conclusive proof, uses nonexclusive factors to assess essentiality, and permits an informal interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Everett v. Grady Memorial Hospital Corp. · filed 2017-08-15(n)(1), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3), (o)(3)

The “essential functions” of a job are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1); see Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). In deciding what functions are essential, the ADA says “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i). ... This Court therefore considers a number of other nonexclusive factors in considering whether a particular function is essential: ... D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... In Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997), this Court recognized the employer and employee may conduct “an informal interactive process” to determine a reasonable accommodation. Id at 1286; see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o) limits reasonable accommodations to those that enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job; accommodations addressing personal interests or barriers outside the workplace are not required.

Zaffino v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County · filed 2017-05-04(o)

We emphasize that the ADA does not require an employer to make accommodations just because they might be in an individual’s interest—it requires employers to make reasonable accommodations that enable a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of a job she’s otherwise qualified for. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o).

Section 1630.2(n)(3)(i) treats the employer’s judgment about essential functions as relevant evidence, while section 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation.

Avila v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2018-08-29(n)(3)(i), (o)(2)(ii)

UPS also offered the deposition testimony of Labor Relations Manager McKirnan that because of safety and liability concerns, UPS practice does not allow an employee returning to work following a SAP evaluation to drive unless he has a valid driver’s license with no restrictions. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i) (providing that evidence of whether function is essential includes employer’s judgment). McKirnan further testified that UPS policy does not allow ignition interlock devices to be placed on UPS vehicles and that it was not feasible to do so because UPS vehicles are shared by multiple drivers and drivers do not use the same vehicle every day. ... Finally, the summary judgment evidence showed that UPS did accommodate Avila by reassigning him to a non-driving position for a one-year period in accordance with the CBA. Neither the ADA nor the TCHRA requires more. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (providing that reasonable accommodation may include reassignment to vacant position); Tex. Lab. Code § 21.128(c) (specifying that damages are not available if employer demonstrates good faith effort to supply reasonable workplace accommodation); Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d 800, 810 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that ADA does not require employer to take action inconsistent with contractual rights of other workers under collective bargaining agreement). We conclude that the summary judgment evidence negated Avila’s claim that UPS failed to make reasonable accommodation and that the trial court did not err in granting UPS’s motion for summary judgment on Avila’s accommodation claim.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) requires a reasonable accommodation to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

Winnie v. Infectious Disease Associates, P.A. · filed 2018-11-08(o)(1)(ii)

The accommodation must enable the plaintiff to perform the essential functions of her job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2 treats an essential function as a fundamental job duty, evaluated using factors including the employer’s judgment and the time spent performing it, and recognizes that identifying an appropriate reasonable accommodation may require an informal interactive process.

Corrales v. Westin Hotel Management LP · filed 2019-04-22(n)(1), (n)(3)(iii), (o)(3)

“An essential function is a fundamental job duty required of a person in the job … .” ... “To determine whether a job function is essential, a court must consider these factors from the applicable EEOC regulation: (i) the employer’s judgment; (ii) written job descriptions; (iii) amount of time spent performing the function; (iv) consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (v) terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) work experience of prior employees in the position; and (vii) current work experience of employees in similar jobs.” ... “Westin’s stated expectations and actual practices show that cleaning 17 room credits per eight-hour shift is an essential function of the housekeeping 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.”

Section 1630.2 treats fundamental duties rather than marginal duties as essential functions, recognizes a function as essential when the position exists to perform it, and addresses reassignment and an informal interactive process as aspects of reasonable accommodation.

Killingsworth v. Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority · filed 2019-08-19(n)(1), (n)(2)(i), (o)(2), (o)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations provide that ‘[t]he term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,’ and ‘does not include the marginal functions of the position.’ ... Given that the ability to drive a bus is “the reason the [bus operator] position exists,” this constitutes an “essential function.” ... Furthermore, ... Accordingly, in light of this “written description” of the job, the court also finds that assisting disabled passengers is an “essential function” of the position. ... The ADA regulations provide that, “‘[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be necessary for [an employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability [. . .]’ to identify the employee’s limitations and any possible accommodations.” ... While a “[r]easonable accommodation may include: . . . reassignment to a vacant position, . . . .,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2), “[r]eassignment to another position is a required accommodation only if there is a vacant position available for which the employee is otherwise qualified,” ... Therefore, because BJCTA challenges Killingsworth’s qualifications solely on the SSA’s finding and has not argued otherwise that Killingsworth does not have the proper qualifications or experience for the position(s), or that reassignment would be unreasonable under BJCTA’s “existing policies,” ... BJCTA’s motion on the failure to accommodate claim fails.

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal tasks, identifies evidence relevant to determining them, and defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform those functions.

Rios v. Grifols Biomat USA · filed 2019-08-29(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)(1)(ii)

“Essential functions” are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires” and “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Evidence of whether a function is essential includes, but is not limited, to (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the person to perform the function; and (5) the current experience of holders of similar jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). The ADA requires employers to make “[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 a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as workplace adjustments that enable an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job.

Williams v. Board of Education, City of Chicago · filed 2019-09-24(o)(1)(ii)

Williams’s claim as to his remaining accommodations requests fails because he has not shown that the accommodations would have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his job. See Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 633 (7th Cir. 2013) (“reasonable accommodations” are “workplace adjustments that enable an individual . . . to perform the essential functions” of their job) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)).

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

McCray v. McDonough · filed 2019-09-30(o)(1)

Under the Rehabilitation Act, a reasonable accommodation means 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.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)-(2). None of Mr. McCray’s allegations support a reasonable inference that he needed to move offices in order to perform the essential functions of his position. Thus, it follows that the VA’s denial of his request does not equate to an actionable failure to accommodate claim.

A reasonable accommodation includes modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Bosarge v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Service · filed 2020-05-29(o)(1)(ii)

An accommodation is “reasonable” and necessary under the ADA, in turn, only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2001); LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 835 (11th Cir. 1998); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (“The term reasonable accommodation means: . . . Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position . . . .” (emphasis added)).

An accommodation is unreasonable if it would eliminate an essential job function, and essential-function analysis considers the consequences of not requiring the function and the work experience of past employees in the same or similar jobs.

Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLC · filed 2021-01-15(o) (n)(3)

A request for an accommodation is unreasonable “if it requires eliminating an ‘essential’ function of the job.” Rorrer, 743 F.3d at 1039 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). “Whether a job function is essential is a question of fact that is typically not suitable for resolution on a motion for summary judgment.” Ibid. (quoting Keith, 703 F.3d at 926). The ADA directs that in determining whether a job function is essential, “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment” and any written description of the job prepared by the employer. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Courts should also consider “[t]he consequences of not requiring the [employee] to perform the function” and the work experience of past employees in the same or similar jobs. Rorrer, 743 F.3d at 1039 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Harvey v. Jai Medical Center · filed 2021-10-05(o)(1)(ii)

“A reasonable accommodation is one that (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) ‘enable[s] [an] employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by ... other similarly situated employees without disabilities,’ id. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).” ... “Ultimately, Plaintiff has not established that she ever requested any reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to perform the essential functions of her position or that her employer refused such accommodation.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position, but it does not require relieving the employee of essential duties and reassigning those duties to others.

Bills v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP · filed 2022-02-08(o)(1)(ii)

The ADA requires employers to make “[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 a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Thus, Bills’ contention that the law required Walmart to accommodate him by relieving him of the essential duties of his current job and reassigning him to another job lacks merit.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats a reasonable accommodation as a feasible change in workplace conditions that enables a qualified employee to perform the essential functions of the job, assessed case by case.

Lozada v. United States Postal Service · filed 2023-03-09(o)(1)(ii)

Specifically, “[a] reasonable accommodation is a change in workplace conditions that would enable an employee to perform the essential functions of her job. Such an accommodation, though, must be feasible for the employer. The reasonableness of any proposed accommodation, including its feasibility, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Vazquez-Jimenez v. Evertec Grp., LLC, 470 F. Supp. 3d 155, 159 (D.P.R. 2020); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) (1)(ii).

A reasonable accommodation changes the work environment or how a job is performed so a qualified employee with a disability can perform the job's essential functions, and an essential function is a fundamental job duty assessed from relevant evidence.

SPRATLEY v. KIDSPEACE CORP. · filed 2023-04-19(o)(1)(ii), (n)(1), (n)(3)

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . . . has promulgated regulations that define ‘reasonable accommodation’ 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.’” Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)). So a reasonable accommodation should enable an employee to perform the essential functions of their job. ... “A job duty is an ‘essential function’ when it is ‘fundamental’ to the position.” Bevan v. Cnty. of Lackawanna, No. 3:17-CV-0919, 2017 WL 6336595, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2017) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). “Evidence of whether a function is essential may include: (i) [t]he employer's judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; . . . (vi) [t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii)[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Id. (quoting Turner v. Hershey Chocolate U.S., 440 F.3d 604, 612 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). And “ ‘[w]hether a particular function is essential is a factual determination that must be made on a case by case basis based upon all relevant evidence,’ which should typically be left for the jury to resolve.” Id. (quoting Turner, 440 F.3d at 612) (quoting Deane v. Pocono Medical Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 148 (3d Cir.1998) (en banc)).

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated alleged emotional distress and anxiety affecting thinking, concentration, remembering, and daily tasks as sufficient to plead a disability, while requiring factual allegations about essential job functions and an accommodation enabling their performance.

VEVERKA v. HUMAN SERVICES CENTER · filed 2023-03-14(h)(1), (j)(1)(ii), (n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3), (o)(1)(ii)

Under the ADA, a physical impairment is defined as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... “An individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity if that individual is unable to pursue that major life activity in a comparable manner ‘to most people in the general population.’” Arrington v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 721 F. App’x 151, 154 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). ... Ms. Veverka’s emotional distress and anxiety conditions could be considered a mental impairment that impacts her ability to think, concentrate, remember, or complete daily tasks. ... As such, and for the purposes of the present Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Veverka has pled sufficient facts to meet the first element of her Failure to Accommodate claim. ... A job’s essential functions are defined by EEOC Regulations as those that are “fundamental” to the job rather than “marginal.” Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co., 257 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... Whether a particular function of a job is essential is “a factual determination that must be made on a case by case basis.” Skerski, 257 F.3d at 278 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630, app. § 1630.2(n)). ... EEOC Regulations define a reasonable accommodation as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Ms. Veverka’s Amended Complaint does not contain adequate information about her job duties and responsibilities as a Director of Assessment Services to survive the present Motion to Dismiss. ... As such, Ms. Veverka did not sufficiently plead facts surrounding the second element of her prima facie Disability Discrimination claim.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) guides whether a job function is essential using evidence such as the employer’s judgment, preexisting job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not performing it, and employee work experience; section 1630.2(o) does not require an employer to create a new position or eliminate essential job functions as an accommodation.

Lawrence v. Star Protection Agency LLC · filed 2023-03-06(n)(3), (o)

To determine whether a function is essential under the ADA, courts consider evidence such as “the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential”; “job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants”; “the amount of time spent on the job performing the function”; “the consequences of not requiring the applicant or employee to perform the function”; and “the work experience of current and former employees.” Bates, 511 F.3d. at 991 (cleaned up) ... (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... The Court notes that even when there is a possibility of accommodation, employers are not required to create a new position or eliminate essential job functions to accommodate the employee. See Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o); Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 249 P.3d 1044, 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) describes a reasonable accommodation as assistance that enables a person with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Coutee v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2024-08-09(o)(1)(ii)

However, the purpose of a reasonable accommodation is to assist an individual with their disability and enable them to perform the essential functions of their position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o) treats a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual to perform the job, while § 1630.2(n) identifies factors and bases for determining whether a job function is essential.

Kellar v. The Yunion, Inc. · filed 2025-10-31(o), (n)(3), (n)(2)

First, “the employee typically bears ‘the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that [the] accommodation is objectively reasonable.’” ... If the employee makes such a showing, then the employer would need to provide the reasonable accommodation “unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship” on its operations. ... The question becomes: could Kellar perform the essential functions of the job while working from home for an extended period of time? As made clear by the record, the answer is no. ... In attempting the analysis, courts consider “[t]he employer’s judgment,” “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job,” “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function,” and “[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Ultimately, a “job function may be considered essential because (1) the position exists to perform the function, (2) a limited number of employees are available that can perform it, or (3) it is highly specialized.” Rorrer, 743 F.3d at 1039 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... By all accounts, managing hard copies of case files was an essential function of the case manager role, and it had to be done onsite. Thus, Kellar could not perform the essential functions of her job even with her proposed accommodation (working from home).

A reasonable accommodation must enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the position; promised assistance that would not do so does not support a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Jewell v. Blue Valley Unified School District No. 229 · filed 2002-07-05(o)(1)(ii)

The idea of accommodation is to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job. ... The record before the court demonstrates that even if defendant had fulfilled each of its promises concerning the assistance it would provide to plaintiff, plaintiff nonetheless would not be able to perform the essential functions of her job. Thus, defendant’s failure to provide the promised accommodations has no bearing on plaintiffs ability to establish a claim for failure-to-accommodate under the ADA.

A reasonable accommodation must enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job; fully remote work is insufficient if those functions require in-person work.

Jones v. Fairfax County School Board · filed 2024-04-19(o)(1)(ii)

As observed supra Part III.A, a reasonable accommodation is one that “enable[s] [a qualified] individual with a disability ... to perform the essential functions of [her] position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Thus, for all the above reasons, Jones has not presented evidence that when viewed in a light most favorable to her would allow a factfinder to conclude that she could have performed all of the essential job functions from a completely remote location, even on a temporary basis.

Section 1630.2 treats an informal interactive process as potentially necessary to identify a reasonable accommodation, and defines essential job functions by focusing on fundamental duties, relevant workplace evidence, and the limited number of employees available to perform a function.

Kvorjak v. Maine, State of · filed 2001-08-09(o)(3), (n)(1), (n)(2)(ii), (n)(3)

The statute's implementing regulations state that it "may" be necessary for an employer to initiate a dialogue with an employee in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... liability nonetheless depends on a finding that, had a good faith interactive process occurred, the parties could have found a reasonable accommodation that would enable the disabled person to perform the job's essential functions, see Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1139; Barnett, 228 F.3d at 1115-16. ... An "essential function" is a fundamental job duty of the position at issue. See Ward, 209 F.3d at 34; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Other evidence also is relevant, including: "written job descriptions, consequences of not requiring the function, work experience of past incumbents, and work experience of current incumbents." Ward, 209 F.3d at 34 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii) (a job function may be considered essential "because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed").

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as fundamental rather than marginal job duties, evaluates them case by case using listed evidence, and calls for an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Conneen v. MBNA Amer Bank NA · filed 2003-06-27(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)(3)

“Essential functions” must be “fundamental” to one’s job and not simply “marginal.” Skerski, 257 F.3d at 279 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). The inquiry into whether a job requirement is essential to one’s job “is a factual determination that must be made on a case by case basis [based upon] all relevant evidence.” Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 148 (3rd Cir. 1998) (en banc)) (quoting 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(n)). Relevant evidence may include, but is certainly not limited to, “ ‘the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential’ and ‘written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job.’ ” Id. However, the employee’s actual experience is also relevant to the inquiry. ... Absent more than appears on this record, we are not prepared to conclude that beginning work at 8:00 a.m. as opposed to 9:00 a.m. is an essential job function. ... Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that Conneen was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she could not perform an essential job function. ... However, applicable regulations 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. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

The regulation treats fundamental job duties as essential functions and contemplates an informal interactive process to identify limitations and potential accommodations.

Jakubowski v. Christ Hospital, Inc. · filed 2010-12-08(n)(1), (o)(3)

Essential functions are “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (2010). ... “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).

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as fundamental rather than marginal job duties and requires an employer’s interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Keith v. County of Oakland · filed 2013-01-10(n)(1), (o)(3)

According to the regulations, “essential functions” refer to job duties that are “fundamental” rather than “marginal.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... In light of this evidence, we hold that reasonable minds could differ regarding whether Keith is “otherwise qualified” because he can perform the essential communication functions of a lifeguard. The district court erred when it decided that Keith’s deafness disqualified him from the position as a matter of law. ... The duty to engage in the interactive process with a disabled employee is mandatory and “requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007); see also 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.’” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(2) directs courts to consider specified evidence when deciding whether a job function is essential, while § 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to explore reasonable alternative accommodations through an interactive process.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2014-04-22(n)(2), (o)(3)

Determining whether physical presence is essential to a particular job is a “highly fact specific” question. Hoskins, 227 F.3d at 726. Accordingly, we consider several factors to guide our inquiry, including written job descriptions, the business judgment of the employer, the amount of time spent performing the function, and the work experience of past and present employees in the same or similar positions. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... If Ford objected to Harris’s request to telecommute for “up to four days per week,” R. 60-10 (Pray Email) (Page ID #1100), it was Ford’s responsibility to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable alternatives. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes an informal interactive process for identifying disability-related limitations and possible accommodations, while § 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to determining a job’s essential functions.

Adkins v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center · filed 2015-07-30(o)(3), (n)(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) (emphasis added). Although the regulation is phrased as permissive with the use of “may” rather than “shall,” the employer’s duty to engage an employee in an interactive process is often construed as mandatory. ... Federal regulations provide us with further insight, identifying, for example, factors relevant to this analysis: written job descriptions; “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential”; “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function”; “[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function”; “[t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job”; and “[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and calls for an interactive process to identify precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

DZURYACHKO v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. · filed 2022-03-21(n)(1), (o)(3)

Essential functions are “fundamental job duties of the employment position.” To determine whether a task is an essential function, a court may consider factors such as the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time dedicated to the task, and the ramifications of allowing an employee not to do a task. ... Material factual disputes exist over the essential functions of the Material Handler position and the physical abilities needed to perform them, with or without accommodation. ... This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... On this basis, a reasonable factfinder could determine that Teva did not engage in the interactive process in good faith.

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties, identifies circumstances making a function essential, directs consideration of several nondispositive factors, and describes the individualized interactive process for identifying limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

O'Dowd v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital d/b/a HENRY FORD ALLEGIANCE HEALTH · filed 2022-03-30(n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3), (o)(3)

“Essential functions are ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.’” Rorrer, 743 F.3d at 1039 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). “A job function may be considered essential because (1) the position exists to perform the function, (2) a limited number of employees are available that can perform it, or (3) it is highly specialized.” Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... An essential job function looks at several nondispositive factors. ... The process is an “individualized inquiry,” id. (quotation omitted), that aims “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)).

The regulation identifies essential functions as the position’s fundamental duties and contemplates an interactive process in which the employer and employee work together in good faith to determine an effective accommodation.

Fitzgerald v. Tillerson · filed 2024-05-31(n)(1), (o)(3)

As an initial matter, “[i]n determining whether a function is essential to a particular position, the Court is to grant the employer substantial deference[,]” Congress v. Gruenberg, 643 F. Supp. 3d 203, 218 (D.D.C. 2022), in regards to “the fundamental job duties of the [ ] position the individual with a disability holds[,]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (defining “[e]ssential functions” under the Rehabilitation Act). ... “The Rehabilitation Act contemplates an ‘interactive process,’” Ali v. Pruitt, 727 Fed. 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(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties an employee must actually perform, while § 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify disability limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

LAMBERT · filed 2025-10-27(n)(1) and (o)(3)

“‘Essential functions’ are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.” Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... When an employee requests an accommodation, the ADA regulations contemplate that “it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The regulations state that the interactive process “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. However, the interactive process is a mutual obligation, and an employee cannot recover if her “actions cause a breakdown in the interactive process.”

Section 1630.2 recognizes the employer's judgment about a position's essential functions, while requiring an informal, interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC · filed 2026-01-14(n)(1), (o)(3)

Indeed, we do not second guess an employer’s assessment of a position’s essential functions so long as they “bear more than a marginal relationship to the job at issue.” Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393–94 (5th Cir.1993)); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation,” in other words, “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).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) lists non-exclusive factors for determining essential job functions, while § 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations once an accommodation is requested.

Elliott · filed 2026-06-18(n)(3) (o)(3)

“Under the ADA regulations, the following list of non-exclusive factors are relevant in determining whether a job duty is an essential function: “(i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions . . .; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). The ADA’s regulations add that “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” Id. ... “An employer is required ‘to initiate an informal, interactive process’ when necessary to determine how an employee’s disability limits her ability to work and to identify appropriate reasonable accommodations.” Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). “[O]nce an employee requests an accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process.” Hrdlicka, 63 F.4th at 571 (citations omitted). ... The Court holds that Plaintiff has not shown why the ADA entitles him to relief for Defendant’s supposed failure to engage in the interactive process. ... Defendant’s duty to engage in the interactive process was only triggered once Plaintiff made a request for a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) defines reasonable accommodation to include measures that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal privileges and benefits of employment.

Bower v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2001-08-21(o)(1)(iii)

Reasonable accommodation includes not only those measures necessary for an employee to perform the essential functions of his position, but also those that enable the employee to enjoy equal privileges and benefits of employment as are enjoyed by other similarly-situated employees without disabilities.

In the context of fringe benefits, § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) treats a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables an employee with a disability to enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges compared with similarly situated employees without disabilities.

Bower v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2006-10-30(o)(1)(iii)

In the context of fringe benefits, such as Defendant’s jump-seat program, a reasonable accommodation constitutes “ ‘modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.’”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions · filed 2010-08-27(o)(1)(iii)

EEOC regulations define the term reasonable accommodation to include “[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). “An ineffective ‘modification’ or ‘adjustment’ will not accommodate a disabled individual’s limitations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) requires reasonable accommodations that let employees with disabilities enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges, not merely perform essential job functions.

Gleed v. At&t Mobility Services, LLC · filed 2015-06-04(o)(1)(iii)

Moreover, the ADA’s implementing regulations require employers to provide reasonable accommodations not only to enable an employee to perform his job, but also to allow the employee to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by . . . similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).

Section 1630.2(o)(iii) requires reasonable accommodation when needed for an employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, not only to perform essential job functions.

Clark v. School District Five of Lexington & Richland Counties · filed 2017-03-29(o)(iii)

The court notes Plaintiff may also prevail if a reasonable accommodation would allow her to enjoy "equal benefits and privileges” of employment as are enjoyed by other similarly situated employees without disabilities.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, even when the employee can perform the essential functions of the job.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2020-05-26(o)(1)(iii)

The Court finds that the ADA permits Mr. Hopman to seek from Union Pacific a reasonable accommodation “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” Id. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). Interpreting “reasonable accommodation” to relate necessarily to the essential functions of an employee’s job would render the other definitions meaningless, and the Court will not adopt an interpretation “to render general words meaningless.”

A reasonable accommodation may be required when it enables an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job or to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.

Melada v. Giant of Maryland, LLC · filed 2021-07-19(o)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(iii)

Instead, the ADA covers requests for reasonable accommodations that enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), or to “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege that working only two to three days in a row would have enabled him to enjoy benefits and privileges at work that he was otherwise denied.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) requires a reasonable accommodation that enables an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment available to similarly situated employees without disabilities; the requested benefit must correspond to an employer-provided benefit or privilege.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2022-03-30(o)(1)(iii)

At trial, Mr. Hopman did not identify a corresponding benefit or privilege of employment offered to Union Pacific employees. There was no evidence presented at trial that Union Pacific offers service animals to its non-disabled employees as a benefit and privilege of employment.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) requires reasonable modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal employer-provided benefits and privileges of employment available to similarly situated employees without disabilities.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2023-05-19(o)(1)(iii)

We agree with the district court that the employer duty to provide “equal benefits and privileges of employment” defined in § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) is limited by the plain text of the regulation.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) treats modifications or adjustments that let an employee with a disability enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges as reasonable accommodations.

Rodriguez v. City of Hialeah · filed 2023-08-16(o)(1)(iii)

The CFR states in relevant part that reasonable accommodations may mean “[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii); see also Fink v. New York City Dep’t of Pers., 855 F. Supp. 68, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d, 53 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The [Rehabilitation Act] requires employers to make such reasonable accommodations as will allow disabled individuals to compete fairly with their non-disabled colleagues.”). As such, an employer may fail to make a reasonable accommodation where a disabled employee identifies that she is unable to enjoy the same opportunity to compete for promotions as non-disabled employees.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats enabling a qualified employee with a disability to enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges as a form of reasonable accommodation.

Schwartz v. Middletown City School District · filed 2024-03-25(o)(1)(ii)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations about reasonable accommodations at the beginning of the school year do not necessarily establish the reasonableness of the District’s January offer. And Plaintiff alleges a pertinent difference: He declined the mid-year offer because it would have “negative[ly] impact[ed]” his retirement pension by bringing down his average yearly earnings. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) The Court construes this as a reason why the offer would not allow Plaintiff to “enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of employment,” as required for “reasonable” employer accommodations. See Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (quoting 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), (iii)); see also Garces v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 16-CV-2811, 2017 WL 3025888, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017) (same).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) requires accommodations that give an employee with a disability equal access to employer-provided benefits and privileges, but it does not require an employer to provide a personal service dog merely to assist with the employee’s daily disease management.

Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri · filed 2024-06-04(o)(1)(iii)

The governing regulation limits an employer’s ADA duty to make this accommodation to “employer sponsored placement or counseling services, and to employer provided [facilities].” 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 App., § 1630.9. ... The employer’s duty to provide “equal benefits and privileges of employment” is limited by the plain text of the regulation. Hopman, 68 F.4th at 400. ... In essence, Howard argues that § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) as construed in the EEOC’s Interpretive Guidance on Title I and Technical Assistance Manual is an invalid agency interpretation of the governing ADA statutory provisions. That argument was not raised and is without merit.