Failure to Accommodate Cases
2,447 employment law court rulings from public federal records (2025–2026)
About Failure to Accommodate Claims
Failure to accommodate claims arise when an employer does not provide reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Under the ADA and Title VII, employers must engage in an interactive process to identify effective accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Common accommodations include modified schedules, assistive technology, and workplace modifications.
Case Outcomes
Top Employers in Failure to Accommodate Cases
Employers most frequently appearing in failure to accommodate rulings.
Court Rulings (50 of 2,447)
Civ.R. 56, motion for summary judgment, de novo review, R.C. 2744.02, political-subdivision immunity, physical defect, safety device, negligence, reckless, open and obvious. Political subdivision and its employee appealed trial court's determinations as to their statutory immunity where a gym's ceiling tile fell on plaintiff-student. Open-and-obvious doctrine did not apply because tile fell immediately after being struck by a volleyball and because plaintiff was required to play volleyball in the gym. Trial court did not err in finding the condition of the ceiling amounted to a physical defect, piercing appellants' immunity. Appellants did not establish that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding whether the lack of a safety device constituted a physical defect. Dispute of fact existed regarding whether the gym teacher acted recklessly in deciding that the students could play volleyball.
Showing 50 of 2,447 rulings (most recent first)
Browse Other Claim Types
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Think you may have a failure to accommodate claim?
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.