In Mildes v. Shriners Hosps. for Child., No. 2:23-CV-00356-SAB, 2025 WL 3176084 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s failure to accommodate disability claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
To establish a prima facie failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, the employee must show that (1) they are disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) they are a qualified individual that can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) they suffered an adverse employment action because of their disability. Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), b(5)(A)).
“[O]nce an employee requests an accommodation … the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). To survive summary judgment, the employee must identify a facially reasonable accommodation. Dark v. Curry Cnty., 451 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2006). Court “should weigh the risks and alternatives, including possible hardships on the employer, to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the reasonableness of the accommodation.” Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate under the ADA if the employee poses “a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.” 42 U.S.C. § 12113(b). To protect disabled individuals from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, courts must employ an individualized direct threat inquiry that relies on the best current medical or other objective evidence. Nunes, 164 F.3d at 1248. Specific factors to be considered include (1) the duration of risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. Id.
The court concluded that “genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s request for accommodation, including the nature and scope of the interactive process and whether Plaintiff could have performed the duties of his job without imposing an undue hardship on Defendant and without being a direct threat to the health or safety of others” and that, therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate.