Delay in Providing Reasonable Accommodation May Violate ADA

Takeaway: A public employer that allowed an employee with a disability to use a service animal as an accommodation, but took six months to do so, may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act with its delay.

A delay in providing a reasonable accommodation might constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to a federal appeals court.

The plaintiff was a 38-year-old mother living in Magnolia, Texas. She served in the U.S. Army and was deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in late 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The plaintiff sustained shoulder, leg, and brain injuries during her service and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She was medically discharged in May 2005.

Toolkit: Creating a Mental-Health-Friendly Workplace

After her discharge, the plaintiff’s disabilities progressed. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) classified her as 100% disabled from service-related PTSD and depression, 20% disabled from a right knee subluxation (partial dislocation), 10% disabled from right knee joint disease, and 10% disabled from a chronic left ankle sprain.

The plaintiff began pursuing a career in the classroom after her military discharge. In 2012, she joined the Aldine Independent School District (AISD) as a fifth-grade and sixth-grade teacher. But her disabilities rendered her unable to continue teaching in the classroom, and she shifted to a testing coordinator position within the district in 2015. After six years of optimal performance, the plaintiff was promoted to work in the AISD’s human resources department in 2021.

After trying alternative treatments, the plaintiff applied for and received a certified service dog named Inde, which assisted the plaintiff by helping her maintain her balance and gait, protecting her from falling, and mitigating acute PTSD symptoms.

In August 2022, the plaintiff submitted a request through the district’s HR portal asking that the AISD accommodate her disabilities by allowing Inde to accompany her at work. The district’s Employee Accommodations Committee (EAC) said that it needed additional information to determine what specific job functions were impacted by her disabilities and whether there were alternative accommodations. The plaintiff provided the EAC with a letter signed by her VA treatment provider.

The EAC deemed this correspondence insufficient because the provider was not a board-certified medical doctor. The plaintiff then provided a nearly identical letter from her treating psychiatrist confirming the need for a service dog.

The plaintiff submitted her accommodation request, and the psychiatrist completed a questionnaire. He specified that the appropriate reasonable accommodation was having the support of a service animal. The AISD told the plaintiff that the next step involved an AISD physician performing an examination and reviewing the medical information that the psychiatrist provided. The plaintiff, frustrated by the AISD’s apparent stonewalling, sought legal advice. 

The ordeal culminated in the following exchanges in 2022:

• Aug. 30: The plaintiff submitted her request for accommodation through the HR portal.
• Nov. 11: The organization that issued the plaintiff’s service dog certification informed the AISD that its insistence on a medical exam constituted disability discrimination.
• Nov. 16: The AISD asked the plaintiff to clarify whether she was refusing to continue the interactive process.
• Nov. 18: The plaintiff’s lawyer wrote a letter outlining disability law violations. The AISD’s counsel replied that the AISD had the right to engage in the interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation and to consider alternate accommodations.

Toolkit: Accommodating Employees’ Disabilities

On Jan. 6, 2023, the plaintiff filed discrimination charges against the AISD. Four days later, she underwent a VA-led examination to assess her physical disabilities. Two doctors separately confirmed that she suffered from impairments relating to standing, balance, and gait, and they stated that a service dog was required to avoid further balance-related injuries.

After receiving these assessments, the AISD’s counsel insisted that supporting notes be provided. The plaintiff’s attorney provided the notes. The AISD then claimed that the letters did not address alternative accommodations.

On Feb. 1, 2023, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court for failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference, all in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Texas disability laws. She then sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction against the district.

The district court denied the plaintiff’s TRO request but directed the parties to complete the interactive process as soon as possible. Six days later, the plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that a walker, cane, or wheelchair would not be as effective as a service dog because they would be of no benefit if/when she falls. Two days later, the district granted the request for accommodation.

The plaintiff filed a second, amended complaint. The AISD moved to dismiss the failure to accommodate and hostile work environment claims, and, in the alternative, sought summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered the plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim in light of the fact that the AISD ultimately granted her accommodation. It noted, however, that the AISD took six months to do so and insisted on repeated documentation, evaluation, and consideration of other accommodations. The 5th Circuit found that such a delay could operate to frustrate the reasonable accommodation process and support an ADA violation claim.

The court thus overturned the dismissal of the plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim.

Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, 5th Cir., No. 24-20269 (May 16, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.