Quick Hits
- Whether live, in-person teaching was an “essential function” was a fact question for the jury, particularly given that the job description did not distinguish live from virtual instruction and the college had used virtual classrooms during COVID-19 and inclement weather.
- Failing to communicate a decision on a requested accommodation, even while considering it internally, may constitute a denial sufficient to establish a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim.
- Both parties have obligations in the interactive process: a jury could find bad faith if an employer fails to consider a requested accommodation and repeatedly seeks information it already possesses, while an employee’s refusal to cooperate may be deemed a failure to engage in the process.
Background
In Davis v. Valley Forge Military Academy and College, No. 23-cv-02004 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2026), an associate professor at a military academy and junior college informed his supervisor of his multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis. Two months later, he requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), submitting paperwork from his doctor that also identified reasonable accommodations, including that he be allowed to teach one to two classes in person, with the rest taught remotely from home. Although the human resources (HR) director indicated that she might need additional information regarding his request, the professor stated that he would not be providing any. The HR director offered in-person alternatives, including an accessible conference room, a classroom without stairs, a desk and chair for sitting or elevating his feet, a separate entrance, and a golf cart. The professor rejected them, insisting on remote work.
In a subsequent discussion with his supervisor, the professor referenced the conversation with the HR director and reiterated that he would not engage in further discussion. In the meantime, the HR director continued to explore and document possible on-site accommodations. The HR director also informed the professor that she needed to clarify some items in his FMLA paperwork and requested that he sign a medical release to allow her to speak directly with his doctor. After initially refusing, the professor finally authorized the release of medical records related only to the FMLA request.
Due to his worsening condition, the professor then went out on continuous FMLA leave for several months. During that time, his supervisor and HR discussed the possibility of a virtual classroom, but did not decide whether to provide one. At the end of his FMLA leave, the college continued his leave and requested additional information about his condition. The professor contended, however, that the college already had sufficient information based on his FMLA paperwork and prior notes from his doctor. He then sought revised accommodations, including virtual faculty duties during flare-ups. Regarding his current status and revised accommodation request, the college requested a new medical authorization because the prior release was no longer valid. The professor denied receiving the request. He did not return after his FMLA leave expired, and he later received long-term disability benefits. His employment was eventually terminated.
The professor subsequently filed suit, alleging an adverse employment action and a failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Legal Framework
The ADA bars discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. A “qualified individual” is someone capable of carrying out the essential duties of a given position, either independently or with reasonable accommodation. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is responsible for enforcing the ADA, has published interpretive guidance identifying several considerations relevant to whether a particular function should be deemed essential. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the employer’s own assessment of the role, any written job descriptions, and the day-to-day tasks actually performed by incumbents in the position.
An employer is obligated to provide reasonable accommodation to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the position, absent undue hardship to the employer. A failure-to-accommodate claim may be based on a showing that the employer either refused to provide a proposed reasonable accommodation or failed to engage in the interactive process after a request for accommodation was made, though a reasonable accommodation was possible.
The Court’s Ruling
The employer moved for summary judgment on the professor’s claims, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that, as a matter of law, the professor’s claim should fail. The court disagreed, finding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to several key issues.
Essential Functions
Whether live, in-person teaching was an essential function of the job remained in dispute. The job description did not distinguish between live and virtual instruction, and virtual instruction might not have been an option when the job description was written. Although the supervisor asserted that on-campus presence and live teaching were essential, the professor cited the college’s virtual classroom capabilities, which had been used during the COVID-19 pandemic and in inclement weather, and the common practice among professors of combining non-live and live teaching. According to the court, a jury would need to resolve the dispute.
Failure to Communicate
Although the college contended it had “never denied” the virtual classroom accommodation, neither HR nor the supervisor told the professor whether he would receive it. The court found that such a failure to respond could support a claim for failure to accommodate and was an issue for the jury.
Interactive Process Issues
The court agreed with the college that it appeared the professor was uncooperative in the interactive process when he refused to sign a full medical authorization, told HR that he would provide no additional information, and (at least initially) insisted on his desired accommodation. That notwithstanding, the court found that a jury could find the college had acted in bad faith by failing to fully consider the virtual classroom and by repeatedly seeking medical information it arguably already had. Because of this, the question as to whether the college had engaged in in the interactive process in good faith was an issue for the jury.
Virtual Accommodation Not ‘Unreasonable as a Matter of Law’
The college cited Taylor v. Phoenixville School District, a Third Circuit opinion from 1999, for the principle that an employee who “insists on a single specific accommodation that is unreasonable as a matter of law … will be at fault for the breakdown in the interactive process.”
While the court acknowledged this principle, it found that issues of fact existed as to whether live teaching was an essential function of the job, and that the college had not shown that virtual teaching (the single specific accommodation sought by the professor) was unreasonable or met that standard. Its adequacy remained a factual question for the jury, according to the court.
Key Takeaways
This decision builds on the guidance provided by the Third Circuit and discussed in our prior article. Employers, especially those in the Third Circuit (comprising Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), handling remote or virtual work accommodation requests may wish to consider the following points:
- It may be helpful to review and revise job descriptions from previous years (particularly, those created prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) to clearly identify essential functions, including any requirement for in-person presence.
- It may be wise to consider each request individually, especially where virtual capabilities exist and have been used before, even if in a more limited manner. Remote work requests may not always be unreasonable.
- It may be useful to document and communicate accommodation decisions in writing and in a timely fashion. Failing to decide or communicate, even if considering the request internally, may be viewed as a denial.
- Employers may wish to track information received in relation to accommodation requests, particularly medical information, and be thoughtful about whether additional information is required. Repeatedly requesting materials already in hand may be used to support a finding of bad faith in the interactive process.
- Like employers, employees must participate in the interactive process in good faith. A refusal to provide relevant medical information or to cooperate with reasonable employer requests may weigh in the employer’s favor.
Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the COVID-19/Coronavirus, Higher Education, Leaves of Absence, Pennsylvania, and Return to Work blogs as additional information becomes available.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts
