An employee sought accommodations for disabilities acquired during her military service. Specifically, the employee requested permission to bring her certified service dog to work. After obtaining two professional medical opinions and further correspondence with the employer, the employer repeatedly found the opinions and documents the employee submitted through the accommodations process insufficient and continued to insist on information regarding alternative accommodations. Frustrated with the delays in the process, the employee filed suit alleging “(1) failure to accommodate, (2) hostile work environment, (3) disability discrimination, (4) retaliation, and (5) interference, all in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Texas disability laws.” Ultimately, the lower court dismissed the first two claims and granted the employer’s summary judgment motion regarding the last three claims. The employee appealed.
In Strife v. Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist., 138 F.4th 237 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling on the failure-to-accommodate claim and affirmed the rest of its rulings. To succeed on such a claim, the employee would need to show “‘(1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability,’ ‘(2) the disability and its consequential limitations were known by the covered employer,’ and ‘(3) the employer failed to make reasonable accommodations for such known limitations.’” Amedee v. Shell Chem. L.P., 953 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 2020). The issue was whether the six-month delay would be considered a failure to “make reasonable accommodations.” The court found that the record indicated the delay showed a lack of good faith on the employer's part in evaluating her request in a timely and appropriate manner, and “crucially” the employer was the reason for the delay. The employer’s insistence on the employee receiving an independent medical exam, despite her providing alternative information, would allow a factfinder to find that the delay was unreasonable. Next, in affirming the dismissal of the hostile work environment claim, the court noted that the record did not show that the two alleged instances were so “pervasive or severe” as to create an abusive work environment. Regarding the disability discrimination claim, the court found that it was unsupported by the record. As to the retaliation claim, the court found the employer’s explanation for needing an independent medical examination had been valid because none of the documents addressed whether alternative accommodations were viable, and the employee failed to meet its burden of showing the rationale was merely a pretext for discrimination. In addressing the final claim, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that the employee could not “‘point to specific evidence in the record’” that showed how the employer had interfered with her rights. Therefore, the court affirmed all claims except the failure-to-accommodate claim and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
By Jace Brown [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]