Skip to main content
Claim Type

Failure to Accommodate Cases

3,417 employment law court rulings from public federal records (18942026)

3,417
Total Rulings
14%
Plaintiff Win Rate
$1,166,440
Avg Damages (163 cases)
S.D.N.Y.
Top Court

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

Defendant Win
1351 (40%)
Mixed Result
726 (21%)
Dismissed
497 (15%)
Plaintiff Win
480 (14%)
Remanded
220 (6%)
Settlement
143 (4%)

Court Rulings (3,417)

Fischler
S.D.N.Y.Jun 22, 2022New York
Settlement
Murphy v. Riedell Shoes, Inc.
S.D.N.Y.Jun 21, 2022New York
Remanded
Wilkerson
S.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2022New York
Mixed Result
Lawal
S.D.N.Y.Jun 16, 2022New York
Settlement
Contreras
S.D.N.Y.Jun 16, 2022New York
Settlement
Leavy
S.D. Cal.Jun 14, 2022California
Mixed Result
Cota
S.D. Cal.Jun 13, 2022California
Dismissed
Dillard
W.D.N.C.Jun 13, 2022North Carolina
Mixed Result
Estrada
5th CircuitJun 13, 2022
Defendant Win
Paguada
S.D.N.Y.Jun 13, 2022New York
Settlement
Paguada
S.D.N.Y.Jun 10, 2022New York
Settlement
Ortiz
D. Kan.Jun 9, 2022Kansas
Defendant Win
Razzoli
S.D.N.Y.Jun 8, 2022New York
Mixed Result
Carter
D. Kan.Jun 3, 2022Kansas
Defendant Win
Adams
E.D. La.Jun 3, 2022Louisiana
Defendant Win
Kawaski Corley v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
C.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2022California
Defendant Win
Yan Luis v. Marriott International, Inc.
S.D.N.Y.May 31, 2022New York
Settlement
Tavarez-Vargas
S.D.N.Y.May 30, 2022New York
Settlement
EEOC v. American Flange and Grief, Inc.
N.D. Ill.May 26, 2022Illinois
Plaintiff Win
Miller v. Adeam International Corporation
S.D.N.Y.May 26, 2022New York
Settlement
John Edwards v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
S.D. Cal.May 26, 2022California
Defendant Win
Sam Benford v. Marine Plaza LLC
C.D. Cal.May 25, 2022California
Remanded
Parada
S.D. Tex.May 25, 2022Texas
Dismissed
Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
Unknown CourtMay 24, 2022Connecticut

The plaintiff employer appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities sustaining a disability discrimination complaint filed by the defendant employee, L, and awarding L, inter alia, back pay and emotional distress damages. L, who is hearing impaired, was hired by the plaintiff in 2012 and assigned to a secretarial position in its education personnel department. She worked directly for the human resources assistant, M, and performed many of the same tasks as him and covered his duties when he was absent from the office. As a result of her hearing impairment, L tended to speak loudly, and, on occasion, coworkers had raised concerns to T, the department's interim director, about the volume of her voice. In addition, S, who worked in the civil service personnel department, had inquired whether there was something wrong with L and had told M that he thought that L was loud and unprofessional. In 2014, M informed L that he intended to retire the following year. M encouraged L to apply for his position, began teaching her any duties of the position that she was not already performing, and strongly supported her candidacy. In August, 2015, the position was posted online, and L submitted an application. L met the qualifications listed in the posting. Two weeks later, S had the job posting removed and revised because he felt that he had a vested interest in assuring that the position was filled correctly. S interviewed prospective candidates for the position. Six candidates were interviewed for the position and two, P and J, were hired. L was not granted an interview because S concluded that she did not satisfy the revised minimum requirement of four years of human resources experience set forth in the revised job posting. After M retired, L became the interim human resources assistant until P's employment com- menced. In her complaint, L claimed that the plaintiff had discriminated against her on the basis of her

Plaintiff Win
Gilbert v. Jabar Wireless, Inc.
E.D. Cal.May 23, 2022California
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc.
S.D. Ga.May 20, 2022Georgia
Mixed Result
Ortiz
N.D. Cal.May 20, 2022California
Defendant Win
Tavarez
S.D.N.Y.May 18, 2022New York
Settlement
John Ho v. Rykadan 005 LLC
C.D. Cal.May 16, 2022California
Dismissed
Ortega
S.D.N.Y.May 16, 2022New York
Settlement
Juscinska
S.D.N.Y.May 12, 2022New York
Settlement
HARTZELL
E.D. Pa.May 11, 2022Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Smithson
W.D. Tex.May 11, 2022Texas
Dismissed
Klein
S.D.N.Y.May 10, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Guerrero
S.D.N.Y.May 9, 2022New York
Settlement
Tavarez-Vargas
S.D.N.Y.May 6, 2022New York
Settlement
Atkins
N.D. Ill.May 3, 2022Illinois
Defendant Win
John C. Smith v. Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi
MISSCTAPPMay 3, 2022
Defendant Win
Katz
S.D.N.Y.Apr 29, 2022New York
Mixed Result
Contreras
S.D.N.Y.Apr 28, 2022New York
Settlement
TAU
E.D. Va.Apr 28, 2022Virginia
Dismissed
Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated
1st CircuitApr 27, 2022
Defendant Win
Mejia
S.D.N.Y.Apr 27, 2022New York
Settlement
Ortega
S.D.N.Y.Apr 26, 2022New York
Dismissed
Finnigan
E.D.N.Y.Apr 22, 2022New York
Dismissed
Hexcel
Utah Ct. App.Apr 21, 2022
Plaintiff Win
McGuire
E.D. Ark.Apr 21, 2022Arkansas
Defendant Win
Rockymore
N.D. Cal.Apr 20, 2022California
Mixed Result
Shiber
S.D.N.Y.Apr 20, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Paguada
S.D.N.Y.Apr 19, 2022New York
Settlement

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.