Ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and, increasingly, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), is not just a legal obligation; it’s a critical component of supporting employees and mitigating organizational risk. Our recent webinar explored how real-world cases offer powerful reminders of what can happen when ADA compliance goes wrong, as well as what it can look like when employers get it right.
When ADA compliance breaks down
One recent case underscores how early compliance failure can occur — even as early as the hiring process. In EEOC v. Wilson Logistics, a deaf applicant contacted the company via a video relay service to apply for a truck driver position. Despite being qualified, the applicant was told the company did not hire individuals who communicate through sign language.
However, ADA applies throughout the application process; it’s not just for current employees. The result? Wilson Logistics was required to pay $50,000 to the applicant and was required to overhaul its policies, training, and accommodation practices. The takeaway is clear: accessibility and non-discrimination must extend to every stage of the employee lifecycle.
Another case, Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, illustrates the potentially severe consequences of failing to accommodate medical needs. A pregnant employee recovering from surgery requested a short-term remote work arrangement supported by medical documentation. Rather than engaging in a meaningful interactive process, carefully considering the temporary remote work request, and exploring reasonable alternatives in good faith, the employer denied a stay-at-work accommodation that could have allowed the employee to remain working and continue receiving income that was needed as she was preparing for her new baby. The employee returned to work out of financial necessity, delivered her baby the next day, and the child did not survive. As a result, the employer was ordered to pay the employee $22.5 million in damages.
While the PWFA was not yet in effect at the time, the employee’s condition likely met the threshold for ADA protection. The case highlights a critical lesson: even seemingly simple accommodations, if denied, can carry profound and tragic consequences.
These real-world examples underscore how compliance pitfalls can be costly — not just financially, but reputationally and operationally.
How employers can get it right
Employers can successfully navigate ADA and PWFA requirements with the right approach.
In Hannah v. UPS, a delivery driver requested accommodations after an injury, including a smaller vehicle or reassignment to an indoor role. After a documented review, the employer determined these options would create an undue hardship or were not feasible. Instead, UPS provided a padded seat and leave as accommodations.
Despite the employee’s attempt to claim that their ADA rights were violated because the employer did not accommodate their wishes, the court ultimately sided with the employer — largely because of all the documentation and the interactive process that they engaged in. This reinforces a key principle: a thoughtful, well-documented review process is essential, even when accommodations cannot be granted as requested.
Similarly, in Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, the employer provided several accommodations to support an employee undergoing cancer treatment, including remote work and redistributed job responsibilities. Over time, however, business needs shifted, and the role required greater in-office presence. Although the employee agreed to work onsite two days per week, they appeared for only two partial days over a 90-day period, did not return to work thereafter, and failed to respond to repeated outreach from the employer. Following this lack of communication and failure to return, the employee was terminated.
When the employee filed suit, the court ruled in the employer’s favor. The key differentiators included the employer’s documented efforts to accommodate the employee and maintain communication, contrasted with the employee’s failure to return to work or engage with the employer, which prevented them from fulfilling the role’s essential requirements.
Key takeaways for employers
Across these cases, common themes emerge:
The interactive process is critical: Employers should engage in ongoing, good-faith dialogue with employees.
Documentation matters: Clear records of decisions, evaluations, and communications can make or break a case.
Reasonableness is contextual: Not all requests must be granted — but they should be thoughtfully considered.
Compliance starts early: ADA obligations begin during the recruitment process, not just after hiring.
Ultimately, ADA and PWFA compliance is about balancing employee needs with business realities, while ensuring decisions are fair, consistent, and well-supported.
For further discussion on the case studies mentioned and for more details about the ADA and PWFA, including identifying and reviewing accommodation requests, when accommodations do and don’t apply, and scenarios to test your knowledge, watch the full webinar here.