REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CASES
Requesting Medical Documentation: How Much Is Enough?
Presented at OPM’s SOELR Conference March 2002
There is an ongoing concern regarding how much medical documentation an agency can request from an employee seeking reasonable accommodation. Management officials, employees and physicians who are involved in this process constantly struggle to achieve a balance between protecting an individual’s privacy regarding medical conditions and requiring enough medical documentation to meet the legal requirements of reasonable accommodation determinations. On the one hand, management officials and their advisors want enough information to make an informed decision. Over the years, many agencies have developed a standard set of questions (typically drawn from 5 CFR Part 339, Medical Qualifications) that is comprehensive enough to use in all or most requests. Proponents of these standardized questions argue that they are a fair method of obtaining medical information that can be applied in all requests for accommodation. On the other hand, employees and their physicians and advocates often feel these comprehensive lists are overly broad and intrusive. Additionally, a complete response to the generic list is often so time-consuming that a doctor may delay or answer incompletely. Opponents of standardized lists also point out that they are contrary to the long-standing requirement for an individualized assessment of each request, based on the particular medical condition and the particular job.
Whether a request for medical documentation is in the form of a standard set of questions or is tailored to a specific job and medical condition, managers often find themselves in conflict with an employee who will only provide limited medical information. Concerned that the limited medical information does not warrant the approval of a requested accommodation, managers often continue to ask for medical information, hoping that additional information will conclusively prove that the accommodation should or should not be granted. Employees grow increasingly frustrated by the requests and the time it takes to get an answer to their request for accommodation. This frustration is sometimes expressed in a disability discrimination complaint that targets the scope of the medical documentation request, the failure to respond to the accommodation request, or both.
This quick reference has been prepared to direct agencies to relevant EEOC decisions and enforcement guidance on this subject. Looking at EEOC cases and guidance issued in recent years, the following trends are clear. EEOC has acted to limit the scope of requests by directing agencies to focus medical information requests solely on the condition as it impacts the workplace. Further, EEOC has instructed agencies to respond to reasonable accommodation requests without making repeated demands for medical documentation.
Guidance
EEOC issued two enforcement guidance documents on this topic: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the American with Disabilities Act (March 2,1999) and Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (July 27,2000). The first document clarifies the rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals with disabilities regarding reasonable accommodation and undue hardship. The latter focuses on the limitations established by the ADA regarding disability-related inquiries and medical examinations during employment. These issuances and others can be obtained by accessing the EEOC website (www.eeoc.gov).
EEOC’s reasonable accommodation issuance includes questions and answers that address many aspects of reasonable accommodation. On the issue of requesting medical documentation, Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the American with Disabilities Act captures the essence of the issue in questions 6, 7 and 8. Questions 6 & 8 address how much documentation the employer can ask for and question 7 addresses situations where an employer can ask an employee to undergo an examination by an agency physician for purposes of documenting the disability and the need for accommodation. The Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act guidance sets out the EEOC’s position on when it is permissible for employers to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations of employees. Further, the guidance defines what constitutes “sufficient” medical documentation (question 10) and reiterates the EEOC’s position that agencies must limit the scope of such requests.
Pertinent Case Law
Listed below are some EEOC decisions that can serve as a starting point for research. Following the citation is an explanation of each case.
Randle v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01980714 (1999)
- agency may not request new medical documentation when existing documentation is sufficient.
Lingelbach v. General Services Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01966290 (1998); See also Winslow v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01962309 (1998)
- employer need not further accommodate employee when insufficient documentation is provided by employee and physician.
Essenfeld v. National Security Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 01961377 (1997)
- employee denied reassignment because she provided insufficient information and later failed to comply with agency's medical evaluation process.
Hupka v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 02960003 (1997)
- employee need not provide additional documentation once agency has sufficient information to approve or deny the request.
Yuni v. Small Business Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01990458 (1999)
- agency may not ask overly broad questions about medical condition and must participate in interactive process.
Kloock v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01974955 (1999)
- employee need not provide additional documentation when sufficient medical documentation was already submitted.
Speaks v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01971634, (9/25/01)
- agency’s continuing requests for medical information (following an agency examination and three other doctor’s reports) were considered “punitive” in nature by the EEOC.
