The email landed in Rachel Morrison’s inbox on a Tuesday morning. Her manager, copying HR, wanted to “discuss concerns” about her recent accommodation request. She’d asked to work from home two days a week to manage anxiety and PTSD—conditions her psychiatrist confirmed were substantially limiting her ability to function. The accommodation seemed reasonable. Her job was entirely computer-based. Half her team already worked remotely full-time.
Three weeks later, she was terminated for “performance issues” that had never been mentioned before her accommodation request.
Rachel’s story is becoming disturbingly common across American workplaces. According to recent litigation trend analysis, disability accommodation disputes have surged to become the second-highest employment law risk employers face in 2026, with 42% of corporate counsel citing these issues as a major source of expected litigation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed 111 merit lawsuits in fiscal year 2024, and disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act accounted for approximately 43% of those cases—a staggering proportion that signals where employment law battles are intensifying.
The confluence of post-pandemic workplace expectations, rising mental health disclosures, and aggressive employer pushback has created a perfect storm of legal exposure. For workers navigating this treacherous landscape, understanding your rights isn’t optional—it’s essential. And for employers still treating accommodation requests as nuisances rather than legal obligations, the wake-up call is overdue.
The Post-Pandemic Shift: When Remote Work Became a Disability Issue
Before 2020, requesting to work from home due to a disability often met with skepticism or outright denial. Employers routinely argued that in-person presence was an “essential function” of virtually every job. Then the pandemic forced millions of workers home overnight, proving that many jobs could be performed remotely without any loss of productivity or quality.
When employees with disabilities began requesting permanent remote work arrangements as reasonable accommodations under the ADA, many expected employers to respond favorably. After all, companies had just demonstrated that remote work was entirely feasible for these positions. Instead, as offices reopened, employers began aggressively pushing return-to-office mandates—and employees with legitimate disability-based accommodation needs found themselves caught in the crossfire.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s operations. The pandemic fundamentally altered the calculus of what constitutes “undue hardship” for remote work requests. Courts are increasingly skeptical of employer claims that in-person attendance is essential when those same positions were successfully performed remotely for months or years during COVID-19.
This shift has created significant legal exposure for employers who reflexively deny accommodation requests without engaging in the interactive process the ADA requires. The law doesn’t mandate that employers grant every accommodation request, but it does require good-faith engagement to explore possible solutions. Many employers are skipping this step entirely, setting themselves up for costly litigation.
Mental Health Accommodations: The New Frontier of ADA Litigation
Historically, ADA accommodations centered on physical disabilities—wheelchair access, modified work schedules for medical treatments, ergonomic equipment. But the legal landscape has evolved dramatically, and mental health conditions now represent a rapidly growing category of protected disabilities.
Anxiety disorders, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and other mental health conditions can qualify as disabilities under the ADA if they substantially limit one or more major life activities. The U.S. Department of Labor guidance confirms that mental health impairments are evaluated using the same legal standards as physical impairments, and employers who treat them differently risk discrimination claims.
The stigma surrounding mental health disclosures has historically discouraged workers from requesting accommodations. But cultural shifts, increased awareness, and the normalization of mental health discussions have led to a surge in accommodation requests related to psychological conditions. Many employers, unprepared for this trend, respond poorly—questioning the legitimacy of the condition, demanding excessive medical documentation, or simply refusing to engage.
Common reasonable accommodations for mental health conditions include flexible work schedules, quiet workspaces or noise-canceling equipment, regular breaks, modified communication methods, and yes, remote work arrangements. Employers who balk at these requests without legitimate business justification are exposing themselves to ADA violations and retaliation claims.
What makes mental health accommodation cases particularly volatile is the subjective nature of symptoms and the difficulty some employers have accepting conditions they can’t “see.” Unlike a wheelchair or a prosthetic limb, anxiety or depression isn’t visible—and that invisibility breeds skepticism. Legally, however, the ADA makes no distinction. An invisible disability is still a disability, and employers who fail to recognize this fundamental principle will find themselves defending discrimination lawsuits.
The Retaliation Trap: How Accommodation Requests Trigger Adverse Actions
Here’s a pattern employment attorneys see constantly: An employee requests a disability accommodation. The employer appears to agree, perhaps grudgingly. Within weeks or months, that employee is suddenly the subject of performance improvement plans, disciplinary actions, or termination for reasons that seem to materialize out of thin air.
This is retaliation, and it’s illegal under federal and state law.
The ADA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who request reasonable accommodations or who assert their rights under the statute. Retaliation claims have become the most common type of employment discrimination charge filed with the EEOC, and accommodation-related retaliation is a significant driver of that trend.
Retaliation doesn’t always look like outright termination. It can manifest as reassignment to less desirable duties, exclusion from important projects or meetings, suddenly negative performance reviews, reduction in hours, or creating a hostile work environment that makes continued employment untenable. These subtle forms of retaliation are often harder to prove but no less damaging to employees—and no less illegal.
The legal standard for retaliation is whether a reasonable employee would be dissuaded from making or supporting a charge of discrimination based on the employer’s actions. Courts don’t require that the employee suffer ultimate employment actions like termination; even adverse actions that might not rise to the level of discrimination on their own can constitute illegal retaliation if they’re motivated by the accommodation request.
Employees who suspect retaliation should document everything—the initial accommodation request, any communications with HR or management, performance reviews before and after the request, changes in job duties or treatment, and any disciplinary actions. This documentation becomes critical evidence if the situation escalates to litigation. Consulting with experienced employment law attorneys early in the process can help employees understand their rights, preserve evidence, and navigate the complex interplay of ADA protections and employer obligations.
The Interactive Process: Where Most Employers Fail
The ADA doesn’t require employers to provide the specific accommodation an employee requests, but it does require employers to engage in what’s known as the “interactive process”—a good-faith dialogue between employer and employee to identify reasonable accommodations that would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of their job.
This interactive process is where most accommodation disputes go wrong. Employers who view accommodation requests as adversarial rather than collaborative set the stage for litigation. The process should involve open communication, exchange of relevant information, exploration of multiple potential solutions, and documentation of the discussion and outcome.
Common failures in the interactive process include refusing to meet with the employee to discuss options, demanding excessive or intrusive medical documentation, unilaterally deciding what accommodation will be provided without employee input, claiming all accommodations would create undue hardship without analysis, or simply ignoring the request entirely.
Each of these failures creates legal exposure. Courts scrutinize whether employers acted in good faith during the interactive process, and even if an employer ultimately had legitimate reasons for denying a specific accommodation, failure to properly engage in the process can itself constitute an ADA violation.
The interactive process also requires flexibility. An employee might request one accommodation, but through discussion, employer and employee might identify a different solution that works better for both parties. The key is that both parties must participate in good faith. An employee who refuses to provide necessary medical information or who insists on a specific accommodation when equally effective alternatives exist can lose ADA protections. But in practice, employer failures during the interactive process far outnumber employee failures.
Undue Hardship: Not as Easy to Prove as Employers Think
Employers can legally deny accommodation requests if providing the accommodation would impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the business. But this standard is much more demanding than many employers realize, and casual assertions of hardship won’t survive legal scrutiny.
Under the ADA, undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expense” when considered in light of factors such as the nature and cost of the accommodation, the overall financial resources of the employer, the type of operation, and the impact on the business. Small employers have more leeway to claim undue hardship than large corporations with substantial resources.
Courts evaluate undue hardship claims skeptically, particularly when employers make blanket assertions without specific analysis. Claiming that remote work would create undue hardship because “we need everyone in the office” won’t cut it—especially when the employer allowed remote work during the pandemic or has other employees working remotely in similar roles. Employers must provide concrete evidence of how the specific accommodation would substantially disrupt business operations or impose significant costs.
Financial cost alone rarely constitutes undue hardship unless the accommodation is extraordinarily expensive relative to the employer’s resources. Most reasonable accommodations cost little or nothing to implement. The Job Accommodation Network, a resource provided by the Department of Labor, reports that most accommodations cost less than $500, and many cost nothing at all.
Employers who reflexively deny accommodations citing undue hardship without detailed analysis are making a costly mistake. When litigation ensues, these blanket denials look like pretexts for discrimination rather than legitimate business decisions.
State Law Complications: When Federal ADA Protections Aren’t Enough
The ADA provides a federal floor of disability protections, but many states have enacted their own disability discrimination laws that offer broader protections or cover smaller employers not subject to federal law. Multi-state employers must navigate this complex patchwork of overlapping requirements, and single-state employers must ensure they’re complying with all applicable state provisions.
Some states define “disability” more broadly than federal law, cover employers with fewer than the 15 employees required under the ADA, or provide for greater damages in discrimination cases. State laws may also have different procedures for filing complaints, shorter or longer statute of limitations periods, and varying standards for what constitutes a reasonable accommodation or undue hardship.
For example, some state disability laws explicitly protect pregnancy-related conditions as temporary disabilities requiring accommodation, going beyond what federal law requires. Other states have specific provisions addressing mental health conditions, substance use disorder recovery, or genetic information.
Employees should consult with employment attorneys who understand both federal and state disability discrimination laws to ensure they’re asserting all available legal protections. Employers who focus solely on ADA compliance while ignoring state law obligations are exposing themselves to additional legal liability.
The Surge in Whistleblower and Retaliation Claims
Beyond accommodation-specific disputes, employment law experts are tracking a broader surge in whistleblower and retaliation claims across all categories of employment law. Workers are increasingly willing to assert their rights and report legal violations, and employers who respond with adverse actions face significant legal exposure.
According to recent surveys of corporate counsel, retaliation claims now represent the most common type of employment litigation risk. This trend extends well beyond disability accommodations to include retaliation for reporting wage violations, workplace safety concerns, discrimination, harassment, and other protected activities.
Federal and state whistleblower protection laws create a complex web of employee rights that employers violate at their peril. The consequences of retaliation can be severe—compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and front pay, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees. In some cases, individual managers and executives can be held personally liable for retaliation.
Employers should train managers and supervisors to recognize protected activity and understand that any adverse action taken against an employee who has engaged in protected activity will be scrutinized for retaliatory motive. The timing between protected activity and adverse action is often the most compelling evidence of retaliation—an employee who receives a negative performance review days or weeks after filing a discrimination complaint will have strong circumstantial evidence of retaliation, even if the employer claims legitimate business reasons for the adverse action.
Practical Steps for Employees Facing Accommodation Denials
If you’ve requested a disability accommodation and your employer has denied it, refused to engage in the interactive process, or retaliated against you for making the request, taking immediate action can protect your rights and strengthen your legal position.
First, put everything in writing. Document your accommodation request in an email or letter that clearly identifies your disability (you don’t need to provide every medical detail, but you need to communicate that you have a condition that substantially limits a major life activity) and the specific accommodation you’re requesting. Follow up any verbal conversations with written confirmation.
Request written explanations for any denials. If your employer refuses your accommodation request, ask them to explain in writing why they believe the accommodation would create an undue hardship or why the accommodation isn’t reasonable. Employers who can’t articulate legitimate reasons in writing may have discriminatory motives.
Preserve all evidence. Keep copies of your accommodation request, your employer’s responses, medical documentation supporting your disability and need for accommodation, performance reviews before and after your request, any disciplinary actions, and communications with HR or management about your condition or accommodation.
Don’t resign without consulting an attorney. Employers sometimes make working conditions so intolerable that employees feel they have no choice but to quit. This is called constructive discharge, and it can support legal claims—but only if you’ve documented the circumstances and consulted with legal counsel first. Resigning may undermine your claims or limit your damages.
File administrative charges promptly. Both the ADA and most state disability discrimination laws require that you file a charge with the EEOC or equivalent state agency before filing a lawsuit. These administrative charges must be filed within strict time limits—typically 180 or 300 days from the discriminatory action. Missing these deadlines can bar your claims entirely, regardless of their merit.
Consult with employment law counsel who can evaluate your situation, advise you of your rights under federal and state law, help you navigate the administrative complaint process, and, if necessary, pursue litigation to vindicate your rights and recover damages.
Why This Matters: The Stakes for Workers and Employers
The surge in disability accommodation disputes represents more than just an uptick in litigation—it reflects fundamental tensions in the modern workplace about disability rights, workplace flexibility, and the balance of power between employers and employees.
For workers, these disputes can be financially devastating. Losing a job because of disability discrimination doesn’t just mean lost income—it can mean loss of health insurance precisely when you need it most, difficulty finding new employment while dealing with a disability, damage to your professional reputation, and profound psychological harm.
For employers, the costs of getting this wrong extend beyond legal damages. Disability discrimination cases generate negative publicity, damage employer brand and recruitment efforts, and create internal morale problems. And the legal exposure is substantial—ADA cases can result in significant back pay awards, compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination, and attorney’s fees that can exceed the underlying damages.
The better path forward is clear: Employers must take accommodation requests seriously, engage in good-faith interactive processes, grant reasonable accommodations unless they can demonstrate genuine undue hardship, and never, ever retaliate against employees who assert their rights. Employees must understand their legal protections, document everything, and seek legal counsel when those protections are violated.
As we move deeper into 2026, disability accommodation disputes will continue to dominate employment litigation. The question isn’t whether these cases will increase—it’s whether employers and employees will adapt to the evolving legal landscape before more lives and livelihoods are damaged in the process.
