Employment Law Report
Time is Liability: Fifth Circuit Signals That Delay in ADA Accommodation Can Carry Consequences
Written by Tyson Gorman with the assistance of Jordan Hinnant, Wyatt Summer Associate
On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District that should prompt employers to take a close look at how they handle accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
At the heart of the decision is a question that many employers face but few address proactively: What is a reasonable timeframe for responding to an accommodation request?
The answer, according to the Fifth Circuit, may be more nuanced than you might initially think.
Understanding the Events Behind the Fifth Circuit’s ADA Decision
In Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, a former school district employee alleged that her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities in a timely manner, in a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and Texas state law.
The employee, a military veteran, had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other service-connected physical conditions.
In 2022, while working in the district’s human resources department, she requested to bring her VA-certified dog to work to help manage her disabilities.
Subsequently, over the course of months, the school district requested multiple forms of medical documentation, found the initial submission insufficient, and scheduled the employee for an independent medical examination (IME). The employee provided letters from medical providers, including her treating psychiatrist, supporting the need for the service dog. However, the district did not approve the request until approximately six months later, after the employee filed a charge with the EEOC and initiated a lawsuit.
The district court dismissed her claims, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part. The appellate court found that the employee had plausibly alleged that the delay in approving her accommodation, combined with how the request was handled, could constitute a failure to accommodate under federal law. The court allowed that claim to proceed but upheld dismissal of her other claims, including disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and ADA interference.
Why This Matters for Employers
If you are tasked with managing ADA compliance, this case is more than just a procedural win for the plaintiff, it is a cautionary tale. Here is why:
1. Delays in Responding Can Undermine the Entire Accommodation Process
The court signaled that a lengthy delay, especially one not adequately justified, may itself be interpreted as a denial of reasonable accommodation.
The key takeaway is that an employer’s failure to act with reasonable promptness can become a legal liability, even if the requested accommodation is ultimately granted.
2. The Interactive Process Should Be Timely and Sincere
Under the ADA, employers are required to engage in an “interactive process” with employees requesting accommodation. While the statute does not prescribe a specific timeline, courts have increasingly scrutinized whether employers are acting in a timely and good faith manner.
In Strife, the district’s insistence on further exams and repeated documentation, even after multiple physical letters, was cited as possible evidence of bad faith.
This finding suggests the interactive process should not be merely procedural; it should be collaborative, efficient, and solution-oriented.
3. Be Cautious with Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs)
While IMEs can be appropriate, they should not be used as a default response to every accommodation request. In Strife, the employer’s reliance on an IME was perceived as an unnecessary hurdle, further undermining the district’s position.
IMEs should be used judiciously, supported by a legitimate need, and ideally after reviewing and engaging with the existing documentation first.
4. Post- Litigation Compliance May Raise Questions About Employer Intent
The fact that the school district granted the accommodation only after litigation had begun did not help its defense.
Courts, as seen here, are willing to question the sincerity of post-lawsuit accommodation and may view them as evidence of pretext or avoidance.
Being proactive rather than reactive in your accommodation process can help prevent costly litigation and reputational damage.
Closing Thoughts: How Soon is Soon Enough?
As the ADA continues to be a source of active litigation, cases like Strife v. Aldine Independent School District offer insight into how courts interpret employer obligations.
Strife reinforces that what matters most is not just how long an employer takes to respond, but how the process is handled. The ruling reinforces that the interactive process must be more than a formality. Open communication, a willingness to engage with the employee’s needs, and a proactive approach to evaluating accommodations all weigh heavily in favor of compliance.
While the ADA does not set a stopwatch, courts will notice when the process stalls without good reason.
Employers navigating accommodation requests should keep in mind that timeliness, transparency, and genuine effort are not just best practices, they are foundational to staying within the bounds of the law.
