Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Unreasonable Delay Keeps ADA Failure to Accommodate Claim Alive, (Jun 24, 2025)

By Sharon Bauman of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

An unreasonable delay in providing an accommodation can support an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held, reversing the dismissal of a failure to accommodate suit.

Alisha Strife, a former U.S. Army service member, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as well as injuries to her right knee and left ankle.

An employee at the Aldine Independent School District (AISD), Strife submitted a request to the district asking that AISD accommodate her disabilities by allowing her service dog, Inde, to accompany her at work.

The district requested additional information “to determine what specific job functions were impacted by [Strife’s] disabilities and whether there were alternative accommodations.”

Strife provided letters from her Veterans Administration provider and her treating psychiatrist documenting her disabilities and the need for her service dog.

Over the next several months, AISD continued to request additional information and indicated that a medical exam was necessary.

Strife filed a charge of discrimination and then sued under the ADA, asserting claims of failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, disability discrimination, retaliation and interference.

AISD then granted Strife’s request for accommodation. The district court granted the district’s motion to dismiss on the failure to accommodate and hostile work environment claims and granted summary judgment in favor of AISD on the remaining claims.

Strife appealed.

The federal appellate panel affirmed with the exception of Strife’s failure to accommodate claim.

AISD’s six-month delay in approving Strife's request could constitute a failure to “make reasonable accommodations” as required by the ADA, the court said.

“Ultimately, Strife's allegations do not merely concern delay; they intimate a lack of good faith from AISD to meaningfully evaluate her request in an appropriate and timely manner,” the court wrote. “Recall that the third factor of a failure-to-accommodate claim requires that an employer ‘make reasonable accommodations’ for a known disability. We have accordingly stated - consistent with our sister circuits - that ‘delay in providing reasonable accommodation may show a lack of good faith in the interactive process.’”

The operative complaint plead sufficient facts to meet this standard, the court said.

“Strife only sought that AISD ‘allow[] her to have and use a service dog at work,’ and did not require that the district procure the dog or modify her workplace,” the court explained. “And the district's delay in granting that request undoubtedly forced Strife to ‘work under suboptimal conditions’ for those six months.”

Importantly, Strife alleged that AISD was responsible for the unreasonable delay, the court said, emphasizing that Strife also claimed the district failed to offer any reasonable accommodations of her disabilities and granted her request only after she initiated litigation and within weeks of a court-scheduled injunction hearing.

“A reasonable factfinder could construe those additional allegations as reasons to disbelieve the district’s claim that it needed to determine whether alternative accommodations were available,” the court added.

The district court employed an incorrect approach, focusing on what Strife experienced while AISD considered her request, to conclude that she did not suffer an injury during the six-month period and that the terms and conditions of her employment did not change.

“But the relevant question is not whether Strife experienced severe injuries while waiting for her accommodation, but whether AISD ‘failed to make reasonable accommodations’ after being informed of Strife’s limitations,” the court wrote. “And, contrary to the district court's reasoning, this court has concluded that ‘reasonable accommodations are not restricted to modifications that enable performance of essential job functions.’ Nor does a failure-to-accommodate claim require proof of an adverse employment action.”

The court affirmed dismissal of Strife’s hostile work environment claim, as her complaint alleged only two instances of harassment—specifically, AISD's refusal to immediately grant her accommodation request and the district's insistence that she undergo an independent medical exam.

Even granting all reasonable inferences in Strife’s favor, neither instance colorably alleged that AISD’s engagement in the interactive process was so pervasive or severe as to create an abusive working environment, the court found.

The panel also affirmed summary judgment on Strife's disability discrimination, retaliation and interference claims.

To read the opinion in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, click here.

Why it matters: The court’s opinion illustrates the challenges faced by an employer. While the court affirmed dismissal or summary judgment on the majority of the plaintiff’s ADA claims, finding that the employer was reasonable in its efforts to obtain additional information about the possible accommodation, it reversed on the failure to accommodate claim, finding that the six-month delay may have been unreasonable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Sharon Bauman

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave. NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

United States

E-mail: whudson@manatt.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

Attorneys: Sharon Bauman (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips).

ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation