ADA claims are rarely about the accommodation itself; they are about the process. This checker scores how a request is being handled and flags the specific behaviors, like a manager denying alone, that turn a manageable request into a claim.
This tool scores process risk for planning purposes. It is not legal advice, does not decide whether any individual has a disability or whether an accommodation is reasonable, and does not substitute for an individualized interactive process.
Employers must provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities unless doing so creates undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense. Agencies and juries evaluating these cases look overwhelmingly at process: was there a dialogue, was the request evaluated individually, was the denial reasoned and documented. This checker scores exactly those elements.
Nine factors, up to two points each. High scores reflect a documented, individualized, consistent process. The heavy penalty items are the known claim patterns: a manager denying alone, blanket rules, missing hardship analysis, and adverse action close in time to the request.
The single highest-risk pattern scored here is separation at leave exhaustion without ADA review. Additional unpaid leave can itself be a reasonable accommodation, and an automatic termination at week 12 is the fact pattern behind a large share of ADA litigation.
Possibly. No magic words are required; a request for help connected to a medical condition, or employer knowledge of an obvious limitation, can trigger the interactive process. Training managers to recognize and escalate informal requests is the cheapest ADA protection available.
Managers can grant easy accommodations, but denials, anything involving medical information, and anything touching essential functions should escalate. A manager denying alone, without process or documentation, is the most common thread in ADA process failures.
Specific, documented, individualized analysis: actual costs, actual operational impact, alternatives considered. “It would be disruptive” without analysis is not a hardship case; it is a plaintiff's exhibit.
Then the interactive process is your friend: explore alternatives, document why each option was or was not feasible, and offer what is reasonable. Employers who engage honestly and document thoroughly win these cases; employers who go silent lose them.
Book a no-cost 30-minute consult. Bring your result, and leave with a straight read on the risk and a practical next step.