3,564 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1894–2026)
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.
Employers most frequently appearing in failure to accommodate rulings.
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
Explore rulings by type of employment law 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.