Disability accommodations in the workplace

Complainant alleged that Respondent had hired her knowing she required accommodations for a disability and that, in the beginning, Respondent provided her with some accommodations.
Complainant further alleged that when she requested two days off as an accommodation, Respondent terminated her employment rather than provide it. Respondent denied the allegations in part, admitting it provided a stool for her feet when she requested it, but that when Respondent’s Human Resources department provided her with ADA paperwork should she require more, Complainant never responded. Respondent asserted it terminated her employment for missing one third of her 90-day probationary period as a newly hired receptionist for its office. Pre-Resolution Conference evidence review and fact-finding showed that even if Complainant had filled out the ADA paperwork, she required intermittent and undetermined leave for an undetermined time-frame, which was not a reasonable accommodation as her specific position was customer-facing and the essential functions required her to be reliably present. Despite this, parties elected to try to resolve without additional investigation, agreeing to a neutral letter of reference, coverage of Complainant’s medical deductible in the amount of $500, and by adding clarifying language to Respondent’s policies regarding the need for informal and formal accommodations in the workplace, along with specifying who makes those determinations. On or around May 6, 2024, the Commission was notified all terms of the agreement had been met, and the case was closed.