Accommodation Starts With a Request – Not Hindsight

 

Employees do not need perfect words or legal buzz phrases to trigger ADA protections. But they do need to communicate clearly enough to let an employer know they are asking for a change at work because of a medical condition.

A recent federal court decision out of Ohio shows what happens when that step never happens.

---

TL;DR: Even assuming an employer knew an employee had depression, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require the employer to infer accommodation requests or retroactively excuse performance problems. Reasonable accommodation is forward-looking, not retroactive, and vague references to fatigue or mental health struggles do not trigger ADA obligations.

📄 You can read the court’s decision here.

---

Depression disclosures collided with performance failures

The employee, a regional manager, had a long history of depression. Years earlier, during a work trip, he told his supervisor that he had been diagnosed with depression, was on medication, and was struggling emotionally. His supervisor responded with empathy, excusing him from part of a meeting and later approving time off, missed calls, and flexibility when personal issues arose.

Over time, however, performance problems mounted.

Within a relatively short period, the employee failed to submit required reports, missed mandatory meetings, overslept and skipped parts of a company convention, and delayed responding to his supervisor.

After progressive discipline, including a final written warning, he missed yet another required team meeting. The company terminated his employment.

Only afterward did the employee argue that his depression and fatigue should have been accommodated under the ADA.

The ADA draws a line between awareness and obligation

Viewing the evidence in the employee’s favor, the court assumed that his depression could qualify as a disability and a jury could find the employer knew about the condition.

But that alone was not enough.

The ADA distinguishes between knowing an employee has a medical condition and knowing the employee is asking the employer to change how the job is performed because of that condition. Employers are not required to infer the second from the first.

Vague struggles do not trigger accommodation duties

Throughout the events leading up to termination, the employee made generalized statements about being tired, overwhelmed, or struggling. What he never did was clearly ask for a workplace adjustment.

He did not request modified duties, a changed schedule going forward, temporary relief from essential functions, or medical leave as an accommodation. He also did not provide medical documentation or restrictions explaining why accommodation was needed at the time performance problems occurred.

The ADA does not require employers to diagnose employees, speculate about limitations, or connect dots that are never clearly drawn.

Retroactive fixes are not reasonable accommodations

When the employee did raise time off, it came after missed meetings and disciplinary action and took the form of asking whether past absences could be charged to accrued PTO.

That request failed as a matter of law.

Reasonable accommodation under the ADA is prospective. Employers are not required to excuse past misconduct or undo discipline based on explanations offered after the fact.

No request means no interactive process

Because the employee never requested an accommodation, the employer had no duty to initiate the interactive process.

The court rejected the idea that employers must open the interactive process whenever an employee mentions stress, fatigue, or personal difficulties. The process is triggered by a request, not by hindsight.

A brief note on the FMLA

The employee also brought an FMLA claim, which failed for a simple reason: he never requested FMLA leave or followed the employer’s leave procedures. After-the-fact explanations and retroactive PTO requests were not enough to trigger FMLA obligations.

What employers should take from this decision

• Awareness is not enough. Knowing an employee has a medical condition does not automatically trigger accommodation duties.
• Requests matter. The ADA’s obligations are triggered by a clear request for help, not by vague signals or hindsight explanations.
• Accommodation is forward-looking. Employers are not required to excuse past performance failures or undo discipline.
• Documentation still counts. Progressive discipline and consistent enforcement remain powerful defenses.
• Empathy does not equal liability. Supporting employees informally does not waive legal requirements or shift burdens.

Bottom line

The ADA protects employees, not ambiguity.

This decision reinforces a principle employers and HR professionals should not lose sight of: accommodation starts with a request. Empathy is good management. Clear requests are what trigger legal obligations.