Employees with reasonable accommodation needs often face a common problem: their requested accommodations are not adequately supported by their medical documentation, leading agencies to offer alternative accommodations that do not effectively meet their needs. The Disability Laws only require that employers meet the minimum needs of the employee. They do not necessarily have to provide the accommodation of the employee’s or their medical professional’s choice.
To successfully counter inadequate alternative accommodations, employees need a strategy. This may include providing specific, detailed information explaining why the proposed accommodations are ineffective. In other cases, additional medical documentation can demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the accommodations for medical reasons. This post will explore how employees have successfully fought back against ineffective alternative accommodations using these strategies to secure the reasonable accommodations they need.
If you are facing issues like this at work, you should contact an attorney familiar with the federal employee EEOC process and cases to assist you in developing the best strategy for obtaining the reasonable accommodations you need to continue your federal career.
The problem: alternative accommodations may appear to be effective
A critical issue arises when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation without providing a specific reason why that particular accommodation is necessary, as opposed to an alternative accommodation proposed by the agency. This lack of justification can complicate the accommodation process and lead to ineffective accommodations.
In Ahmed S. v. Garland, a food service administrator with back pain failed to get his desired accommodation of a compressed work schedule. He wanted this schedule to reduce his daily commute and to attend doctor’s appointments. The agency denied this request but allowed him to take extended breaks during the day. The agency provided him with an alternative accommodation that he did not request but that the agency felt met his reasonable accommodation needs.
The EEOC found the breaks sufficient to meet the employee’s reasonable accommodation needs, noting the lack of evidence from the employee or his doctor explaining why the alternative accommodation was ineffective. The medical information provided no restrictions on the employee’s work.
The employee needed to provide specific instances or medical documentation demonstrating that the breaks were inadequate. Without this additional information, the EEOC had no basis to conclude that the employee wasn’t accommodated.
This case shows how employees can fail to get the accommodations they need if they don’t provide enough information to their employer or the EEOC. To successfully challenge an alternative accommodation, employees must clearly explain why it doesn’t meet their needs. They can do this by providing specific examples or medical documentation supporting their preferred accommodation.
Employees who fought back and won
There are cases, however, where the employee responds to an offer of alternative accommodations and clearly points out—either in their own letter or in medical documentation—that the accommodations ultimately will not work for them. These cases demonstrate that when an agency is aware that the accommodation offered is ineffective, they have to provide an effective reasonable accommodation, which may be the accommodation that the employee had originally sought.
Fernanda H.: fighting back with a detailed letter
A great case exemplifying how sending a letter to a reasonable accommodation coordinator can force the agency to provide requested accommodations is in Fernanda H. In this case, an employee with chronic migraines and asthma requested to telework 5 days per week as a reasonable accommodation after her office relocated. The new office environment, with its lighting, temperature, humidity, noise, and odors, exacerbated her medical conditions.
The Agency denied her request for 5 days of telework, stating that the previously approved accommodations of 4 days of telework and a private office on her in-office day were sufficient to meet her needs. They offered additional accommodations such as a fan, adjustments to air vents, and a cooling vest and wristbands.
However, these alternatives proved to be ineffective. In response, Fernanda submitted a detailed letter to the Agency, addressing their reasons for the denial. She emphasized the specific triggers in the new office that adversely affected her health and highlighted her doctors’ recommendations for 5 days of telework.
For example, she was triggered by her office’s overhead lighting. Although the agency replaced the lighting in her office, it did not replace the lights in the bathrooms, meeting rooms, or hallways. By pointing this out, the agency was notified that the accommodations provided were simply not going to meet her needs.
The EEOC determined that the Agency had failed to provide an effective accommodation based on the information presented in Fernanda’s letter. They found that the alternative accommodations offered by the Agency did not adequately address all of Fernanda’s limitations.
Fernanda’s comprehensive letter played a significant role in the EEOC’s decision. The letter carefully documented how the office environment exacerbated her medical conditions and effectively rebutted the Agency’s arguments. Ultimately, this led the EEOC to conclude that the Agency had failed to provide an effective reasonable accommodation in Fernanda’s case.
Michale S.: fighting back with medical documentation
In a recent case, Michale S., a Claims Specialist for the Social Security Administration, requested full-time telework as an accommodation for his PTSD and anxiety, which were significantly exacerbated by hostile interactions with a coworker in the office. The agency initially granted interim full-time telework but ultimately denied the request, offering alternative accommodations of office relocation and a gradual return schedule.
Michale effectively rebutted the agency’s alternative accommodations through a powerful statement from his treating psychiatrist. The psychiatrist emphasized that working in the office, even with the proposed accommodations, was not as effective as full-time telework in managing Michale’s disabilities.
Importantly, the psychiatrist highlighted that an effective accommodation must not only address current symptoms but also prevent future exacerbation. The doctor’s letter included specific restrictions, such as the number of days Michale could work in the office, which provided strong evidence that the agency’s accommodations were insufficient.
The EEOC placed substantial weight on this medical documentation, concluding that the agency’s alternative accommodations were not as effective as full-time telework, given Michale’s unique mental health situation and the specific office-based trigger that exacerbated his symptoms. This case demonstrates the importance of compelling medical evidence in successfully challenging an agency’s denial of a preferred accommodation.
Lessons for Employees
These cases illustrate two effective strategies for employees to challenge alternative accommodations that don’t meet their needs. The first approach involves submitting a detailed letter that specifically explains why the offered accommodations are inadequate. For instance, in Fernanda H., she highlighted for example that many areas in the office, especially those with problematic lighting, wouldn’t benefit from the proposed accommodations.
The second method, in Michale S., involves obtaining strong, clearly defined restrictions from a medical professional—in his case, a psychiatrist. Both cases underscore a crucial point: standing firm against ineffective accommodations and refusing to accept them was vital. This assertiveness ultimately enabled these employees to either secure the accommodations they truly needed or, failing that, to prevail in their EEOC cases.
These cases demonstrate that employees can successfully challenge ineffective alternative accommodations by:
- Providing specific examples and detailed explanations of how the proposed accommodations do not meet their needs or fail to address their limitations effectively. By clearly communicating the shortcomings of the alternative accommodations, employees can build a strong case for why their preferred accommodation is necessary.
- Submitting new medical documentation that supports their need for a specific accommodation. Updated medical information, particularly from treating physicians or specialists, can provide critical evidence of the employee’s limitations and the effectiveness of the requested accommodation in managing their condition and preventing future exacerbation.
By employing these strategies and presenting a well-documented case, employees can increase their chances of securing an accommodation that effectively meets their needs or winning an EEOC discrimination case if the agency is unwilling to meet those needs.
Get Help with your federal accommodations issues
If you are a federal employee seeking assistance with a reasonable accommodation request or facing challenges related to alternative accommodations, it is highly recommended that you consult with an attorney who specializes in federal employment law and has experience handling federal employee cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). An experienced attorney can provide personalized guidance and representation tailored to your unique circumstances.
This blog post is intended to provide general legal information and insights into the reasonable accommodation process. However, it should not be construed as legal advice for any specific case or situation.
Resources
Ahmed S. v. Garland, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004060 (Nov. 4, 2021)
Fernanda H. v. Social Security Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004066 (Dec. 21, 2021)
Michale S. v. Social Security Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2023003911 (June 12, 2024)