Can Fired Hostess Sue Over Restaurant’s Failure to Unilaterally Start Interactive Process?

What Do You Think?

Employers must engage in the interactive process concerning an employee’s need for an accommodation under the ADA. But what if an employee clearly has a disability but doesn’t identify the accommodation she wants? Can the employer be liable if does not start the interactive process? A case involving a hostess for an Arizona restaurant tackles that issue. 

As a hostess, the employee greeted guests and managed seating, among other tasks. The restaurant was aware of her disability when it hired her. 

At one point, the hostess reportedly locked herself in the bathroom, crying, and said “[I can't] do this anymore." Her supervisors also said they needed to frequently remind her to complete her work tasks. Eventually, the restaurant terminated her, citing performance issues.

The hostess sued the restaurant for failing to accommodate her under the ADA. She claimed her employer never engaged in the interactive process because it never proposed an accommodation.

Under the ADA, “once an employee requests an accommodation . . . the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.”

Did the employee have a viable failure to accommodate claim?

A. No. She didn’t identify a reasonable accommodation.

B. Yes. The employer knew she had a disability and was therefore required to begin the interactive process.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Jones v. Henhouse, Inc., No. CV-22-02137-PHX-DJH (D. Airz. 01/21/25), which dismissed the claim. 

The court explained that the interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations between the employer and employee. The hostess, however, was essentially arguing that it was up to her employer to start the interactive process and that by not doing so, it violated the ADA.

“However, the interactive process begins ‘once an employee requests an accommodation.’" the court wrote.

Thus, the employee must first identify an accommodation that is, on its face, reasonable. Even if the restaurant didn’t engage her in discussions of accommodations, that obligation would not have been triggered until the hostess requested a facially reasonable accommodation.

The court ruled in the restaurant’s favor on the hostess’s failure to accommodate claim.

Share This Article: