C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XIV—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION › PART 1630—REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

29 C.F.R. § 1630.9

Not making reasonable accommodation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It is unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.

(b) It is unlawful for a covered entity to deny employment opportunities to an otherwise qualified job applicant or employee with a disability based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to such individual's physical or mental impairments.

(c) A covered entity shall not be excused from the requirements of this part because of any failure to receive technical assistance authorized by section 507 of the ADA, including any failure in the development or dissemination of any technical assistance manual authorized by that Act.

(d) An individual with a disability is not required to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity or benefit which such qualified individual chooses not to accept. However, if such individual rejects a reasonable accommodation, aid, service, opportunity or benefit that is necessary to enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired, and cannot, as a result of that rejection, perform the essential functions of the position, the individual will not be considered qualified.

(e) A covered entity is required, absent undue hardship, to provide a reasonable accommodation to an otherwise qualified individual who meets the definition of disability under the “actual disability” prong (§ 1630.2(g)(1)(i)), or “record of” prong (§ 1630.2(g)(1)(ii)), but is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual who meets the definition of disability solely under the “regarded as” prong (§ 1630.2(g)(1)(iii)).

[56 FR 35734, July 26, 1991, as amended at 76 FR 17002, Mar. 25, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 333 cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia (2019) ca11 · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (e). 12 Defendants state that the district court did not reach the third element of the prima facie case— whether Ms.”
Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, Inc. (1996) ca5 · cites it 6× “”) (emphasis added); 29 C.F.R. 1630.9, App. (1995) (“Employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations only to the physical or mental limitations resulting from the disability that is known to the employer.”
Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners (2020) ca10 · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (a). This formulation of the statute’s reasonable-accommodation requirement not only omits any mention of an adverse-employment-action component, but also implicitly rejects by this omission the notion that there is such a component in a…”
Bryant v. Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland, Inc. (1996) mdd · cites it 5× “§ 12112 (b)(5)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 ; Myers, 50 F.3d at 282 .”
Frances Hankins v. The Gap, Inc. (1996) ca6 · cites it 3× “Philbrook was an employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but we believe that its reasoning regarding alternate reasonable accommodations is fully applicable to actions under Title I of the ADA. In the instant case, The Gap did provide…”
Kelvin D. Peebles v. John E. Potter, 1 Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (2004) ca8 · cites it 2× “Under the Act and its regulations, such discrimination occurs if "a covered entity [does] not ... make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability, unless such covered entity can…”
Valentine v. American Home Shield Corp. (1996) iand · cites it 7× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (d). Hankins, 84 F.3d at 800-01 .”
Sharon Johnson v. Cleveland City School District (2011) ca6 · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (a). Therefore, the District was required to reasonably “accommodate” the various restrictions provided by her doctors’ evaluations.”
Adams v. Rice (2008) cadc · cites it 2× “§ 12112(b)(5)(A); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (a). Here, Adams alleges that the State Department denied her employment because of her status as a cancer survivor.”
Mary Christine Smith v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (2004) ca6 · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (a). A reasonable accommodation means, among other things, “Modifications or adjustments .”
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC (2017) tned “See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 , App. (“In many instances, the appropriate reasonable accommodation may be so obvious to either or both the employer and the individual with a disability that it may not be necessary to proceed in this step-by-step fashion”).”
Delores Frazier-White v. David Gee (2016) ca11 “§ 12112 (b)(5)(A) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 (a)). An accommodation is only reasonable if it allows the disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the job in question; Id.”
Show all 333 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(a) — 9 cases
Kelvin D. Peebles v. John E. Potter, 1 Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (2004) ca8 “Under the Act and its regulations, such discrimination occurs if "a covered entity [does] not ... make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability, unless such covered entity can…”
Fahey v. Twin City Fan Companies (2014) sdd
Ramon Gomez v. Department of Homeland Security (2024) mspb
Marshall v. United Credit Corp of Tallulah (2021) lawd
Nicks v. Shulkin, MD (2020) moed
— 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d) — 4 cases
Shultz v. Postmaster General (2005) ca3
Librandi v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc (2023) ctd
Brode v. Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2023) ilnd
Corrigan v. Perry (1998) ca4
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.