When is my situation an ADA violation?

ByRoni Kean

Case Study 1: ADA Violation – Failure to Accommodate

Company: TechCorp Solutions
Employee: Sarah Martinez, Software Developer with ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Background:  Sarah was hired as a mid-level developer and disclosed her ADHD and autism diagnosis during onboarding. She requested accommodations including:

  • A quiet workspace away from high-traffic areas
  • Written instructions for tasks when possible
  • Flexible break schedule to manage sensory overload
  • Permission to use noise-canceling headphones

Company Response:

  • Manager acknowledged the request but took no action for 3 months
  • Sarah was assigned to an open-plan desk next to the break room
  • When she used headphones, her supervisor repeatedly told her it looked “antisocial”
  • Manager continued giving only verbal instructions in loud environments despite repeated requests

Impact:  Sarah’s performance declined due to constant sensory overload and difficulty processing verbal-only instructions. She was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) without any discussion of accommodations.

Legal Outcome:  Sarah filed an EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit. The company lost because they:

  • Failed to engage in the interactive process
  • Denied reasonable accommodations that would not cause undue hardship
  • Took adverse employment action (PIP) without first providing accommodations
  • Demonstrated discriminatory animus (the “antisocial” comments)

Settlement: $185,000 plus policy changes and mandatory training

Case Study 2: NOT an ADA Violation – Legitimate Business Requirements

Company: Premier Financial Services
Employee: James Chen, Client Relations Manager with Dyslexia

Background:  James was hired for a client-facing role requiring real-time written communication with high-net-worth clients. He disclosed his dyslexia and requested:

  • Elimination of all written communication requirements
  • Assignment only to phone-based client interactions
  • Unlimited time to respond to client emails (up to 48 hours)

Company Response:  The company engaged in the interactive process and:

  • Offered text-to-speech and speech-to-text software
  • Provided access to grammar-checking tools (Grammarly Premium)
  • Allowed extra time for written reports (24-hour extension)
  • Offered a part-time proofreading assistant for client communications

However, they declined to:

  • Eliminate written communication (essential job function for client-facing role)
  • Allow 48-hour email response times (violated contractual obligations to clients)

Interactive Process:  Multiple meetings were held. The company provided documentation showing written communication was an essential function listed in the job description James had applied for, and that immediate client response was a contractual requirement.

Outcome:  James refused the offered accommodations and resigned, then filed an EEOC complaint claiming failure to accommodate. The complaint was dismissed because:

  • The company engaged in good faith interactive process
  • Written communication was an essential function of the position
  • The requested accommodations would cause undue hardship (contractual violations, fundamental alteration of the job)
  • The company offered multiple reasonable alternative accommodations

No Legal Liability: Case dismissed at EEOC level

The critical distinction is that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations that don’t impose undue hardship or eliminate essential job functions. Case 1 failed because simple, reasonable accommodations were ignored. Case 2 succeeded in defense because the company demonstrated good faith efforts and legitimate business limitations.

Key Differences: 

Interactive Process

Case 1 (Violation)

Interactive Process never initiated.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Multiple good-faith meetings held.

Reasonableness

Case 1 (Violation)

Accommodations were simple and at no cost.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Requested accommodations eliminated essential functions of the job.

Company Effort

Case 1 (Violation)

No accommodations provided.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Multiple alternatives offered.

Essential Functions

Case 1 (Violation)

Accommodations did not impact core duties.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Request fundamentally altered the position.

Undue Hardship

Case 1 (Violation)

None demonstrated.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Clear contractual and operational hardship shown.

Evidence of Discrimination

Case 1 (Violation)

Negative comments about accommodation use proven.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Professional, documented business reasoning.

Documentation

Case 1 (Violation)

Poor/no documentation on accommodation efforts.

Case 2 (No Violation)

Extensive documentation of process and reasoning to support.

If you need help or would like advice on what you may need to do to bring your case, contact Divergent Support, today!

Similar Posts