Employers often worry that a good-faith effort to keep an injured employee working will later be used against them as proof they “could have accommodated” the employee indefinitely. A recent Sixth Circuit decision draws a clear line between temporary flexibility and permanent obligation. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

Safety policies should protect workplaces, not produce eight-figure ADA exposure. This case shows how a rigid medical rule, applied without individualized assessment, can turn a routine injury into a litigation disaster.

TL;DR: A jury found that an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oregon disability law by enforcing a blanket medical policy that unlawfully screened out an employee instead of evaluating his actual abilities. The jury issued an advisory award that included $25 million in punitive damages, and the court declined to disturb the verdict.

📄 Read the court’s decision

This case is a reminder that the ADA interactive process is about engagement, not just documentation. When an employer waits too long, courts start asking why.

That question sat at the center of this dispute and ultimately kept the case alive. Continue reading