Denying an accommodation request is lawful in defined circumstances — but the letter is the document that shows whether you ran the analysis or skipped it. Failure-to-accommodate claims frequently turn less on the final decision than on what the employer did before making it, and the denial letter is usually the clearest record of that.
Why it matters: The ADA contemplates an informal, interactive dialogue to identify limitations and potential accommodations. Where an employer denies a request without evidence of that exchange — no meeting, no follow-up questions, no alternatives explored — the failure to engage frequently becomes the centerpiece of the claim, sometimes more damaging than the denial itself. A letter that simply announces the outcome documents the absence.
Check: The letter recounts the dialogue: when the request came in, what information was requested and received, what options were discussed, and who participated.
Why it matters: Undue hardship generally means significant difficulty or expense measured against factors including the cost, the employer's overall resources, the size and structure of the operation, and the impact on operations — not a general sense that the request is burdensome. Rationales built on coworker morale, perceived unfairness, or "if we do it for one we'd have to do it for everyone" have generally been rejected. A hardship analysis assembled after a claim is filed carries far less weight than one documented at the time.
Check: The stated hardship cites specific costs or operational effects tied to this accommodation and this workplace, with the analysis dated at the time of the decision.
Why it matters: A denial resting on inability to perform essential functions depends on which functions are truly essential. A written job description prepared before advertising the role is evidence, but it is generally not conclusive — the analysis also considers time spent on the function, the consequences of not performing it, and how the job is actually done. Denials that rely on a boilerplate description listing everything the role might touch tend not to survive scrutiny, especially where the function is marginal or rarely performed.
Check: The functions identified as essential are supported by more than the job description, and marginal duties are not treated as essential.
Why it matters: Denying accommodation because the employee would pose a safety risk is a specific defense with a demanding standard. It generally requires an individualized assessment based on reasonable medical judgment and current objective evidence, weighing the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood it will occur, and its imminence — and whether accommodation could reduce the risk. Denials resting on a diagnosis, generalized fear, or "we can't take the chance" are the classic failure pattern.
Check: Any safety rationale documents the individualized assessment, the objective medical evidence relied on, and why accommodation could not reduce the risk.
Why it matters: Denying the specific request is not the end of the obligation. Where more than one accommodation would be effective the employer may ordinarily choose among them, but the alternative must actually work. Reassignment to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified is recognized as a form of reasonable accommodation, often described as a last resort when accommodation in the current role is not possible — and courts have differed on how it interacts with competitive hiring policies, so approaches vary by jurisdiction.
Check: The letter identifies alternatives considered and why each was rejected or offered, and addresses vacancy review where accommodation in the current role isn't workable.
Why it matters: Automatic rules are a recurring enforcement target: fixed maximum-leave caps that terminate employees at a set duration, "100 percent healed" or "no restrictions" return-to-work requirements, and blanket refusals to consider any modified duty. The EEOC has pursued employers over inflexible policies applied without individualized assessment. A denial letter that cites the policy as the reason — rather than an assessment of this employee — documents the problem in writing.
Check: The stated reason is an individualized conclusion about this request, not the automatic operation of a leave cap or full-duty rule.
Why it matters: The ADA generally requires medical information to be kept confidential and maintained separately from ordinary personnel files, with access limited. Denial letters that restate diagnoses or clinical detail — and get copied to supervisors, filed in the personnel folder, or forwarded broadly — can create an independent confidentiality problem on top of the underlying dispute. Requests for supporting documentation are also generally limited to what is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Check: The letter references that documentation was received and considered without reciting medical detail, distribution is limited, and medical records are stored separately.
Why it matters: Extended delay can itself be treated as a constructive denial, so gaps in the timeline invite scrutiny. A denial that closes the conversation entirely — no invitation to propose alternatives, no path to revisit if circumstances change — forecloses the dialogue the process contemplates. And the ADA is rarely the only law in play: FMLA, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, workers' compensation, and state disability statutes may impose separate obligations, with several states (California's FEHA among them) applying broader standards and lower employer-size thresholds than federal law.
Check: Response timing is reasonable and documented, the letter invites further discussion, and parallel obligations under leave, pregnancy, and state law have been considered.
Upload your draft and see the risks flagged — checked against 100+ issues attorneys look for, in about 60 seconds.
Scan your letter freeNo account required · PII redacted before analysis · Original file never stored
Yes, in defined circumstances — generally where no reasonable accommodation would allow performance of the essential functions, where it would impose an undue hardship, or where the employee would pose a direct threat that accommodation cannot reduce. Each is a specific standard requiring an individualized, documented analysis.
Generally significant difficulty or expense, judged against factors including cost, the employer's overall resources, the size and structure of the operation, and the impact on operations. Speculation about morale, fairness, or precedent has generally been rejected, and the analysis is best documented at the time of the decision.
Generally no — where multiple accommodations would be effective, the employer may ordinarily choose among them. But the alternative has to actually be effective for that employee's limitations; substituting something cheaper that doesn't work is treated as a denial.
It can be, including leave beyond FMLA. The EEOC has challenged inflexible maximum-leave policies and 100-percent-healed rules that terminate employees automatically without individualized assessment. Courts have not required indefinite leave in every case, so the analysis usually turns on whether the duration is definite and whether the absence imposes undue hardship.
This guide is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment law varies by state and changes frequently; consult a licensed employment attorney about your specific situation. DefensibleHR.ai scan results are AI-generated starting points for review, not a substitute for counsel.