A federal district court in Ohio issued an instructive opinion for employers on accommodations and employers’ obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on December 9, 2025, addressing the application of an accommodation request to excuse past disciplinary documentation.
The Ohio federal court found:
- An employee’s disability does not excuse excessive absences, tardiness or poor work performance unless those issues are caused by the disability and addressed through a timely accommodation.
- An employee’s request to excuse past discipline is not a reasonable accommodation and is one that an employer does not have to grant.
- An employee is required to comply with the employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave when requesting leave as an accommodation, absent unusual circumstances.
The Employee’s Conduct and Accommodation Requests
The employee at issue missed reporting deadlines, failed to attend a required conference, and missed scheduled meetings with his supervisor. In each instance, the employee requested, after the fact, that discipline be excused due to his disability.
The Ohio court determined the employee should have complied with any request for an accommodation before the deadline or attendance was required. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance stating that “a reasonable accommodation is always prospective,” and that “an employer is not required to excuse past misconduct even if it is the result of the individual’s disability.”
When an Employer’s Duty to Accommodate Is Triggered
The court also addressed the employee’s burden in requesting an accommodation. While an employee is not required to use “magic words” or explicitly state that they are requesting an accommodation under the ADA, the employee bears the initial responsibility of communicating:
- the existence of a disability, and
- a desire for an accommodation, such as an exception to a rule, policy, or requirement, or a request for additional leave after all other available leave has been exhausted.
Once an employee makes such a request, the employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process is triggered.
Notice of a Disability: Depression Alone May Not Be Enough
Another issue in the case was whether the employee put the employer on notice that his depression constituted a disability under the ADA. The Ohio federal court explained that a “mere reference to depression, without more, is not sufficient notice of a disability to an employer,” because depression does not always rise to the level of a disability under the ADA.
The court emphasized that an employer is not required to speculate as to the extent of an employee’s disability or need for an accommodation. Citing prior precedent, the court noted that “[a] general awareness of some symptoms is not enough to show an employer knew of an employee’s disability.”
The court explained that an employer may be on notice of a disability when it is aware of information such as a diagnosis, the existence of a treatment plan, observed severe symptoms, or work restrictions—examples of information an employee might share that would legally place an employer on notice of a disabling condition.
The Importance of Documentation for Employers
Finally, the court relied on the employer’s written, well-documented instances of performance and attendance infractions. Those records were signed by the employee and/or acknowledged by email from the employee to the employer, demonstrating that the employee was aware of the discipline at the time it was issued. But for that documentation, the employer would not have been able to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for the employee’s termination or prove that the employee’s accommodation requests were excuses for discipline that had already been issued. The court relied on guidance from the Equal Opportunity Commission, which states “’a reasonable accommodation is always prospective’ so ‘an employer is not required to excuse past misconduct even if it is the result of the individual’s disability.’”
Save the date: Chris Gantt-Sorenson will present an ADA deep-dive on April 23, 2026, reviewing what employers are required to do in properly addressing accommodation requests for job modification or leave, the interactive process and the documentation that is required, and other legal requirements for ensuring ADA compliance in defense of any claims that arise.
For questions or more information on this topic, please contact Chris Gantt-Sorenson.