Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the interactive process for accommodations requires an ongoing dialogue between employer and employee to identify appropriate accommodations. Ultimately it is the employer’s decision, but the employer cannot unilaterally make a decision without dialogue. Many times, an accommodation is either at no cost or up to about $200, so an accommodation should be doable.
The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided greater clarity in the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, No. 24-1432 (4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 25, 2025). Tarquinio, an employee at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), sought a medical exemption from APL’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement due to a condition she described as “Lyme-induced immune dysregulation.” Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (APL), as a federal contractor, was required at the time to mandate vaccination in line with federal guidelines. Tarquinio declined to allow her doctors to communicate directly with APL or provide updated medical records to substantiate her request. As a result, APL terminated her employment for noncompliance.
Tarquinio sued APL for failure to accommodate her disability, wrongfully terminating her, and making impermissible medical inquiries under the ADA. The District Court dismissed the case at summary judgement stating that Tarquinio had not adequately notified the employer of a work-related limitation requiring accommodation. The key term is “adequately notified.” Tarquinio did not allow her medical team to provide information to APL, and APL had no opportunity to determine whether she needed an accommodation or what kind of accommodation, if any, would be reasonable under the circumstances.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s dismissal at summary judgment. The court emphasized that the ADA’s implementing regulations anticipate that employers will often need to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with employees to determine reasonable accommodations. This process is designed to help employers fulfill their duty to accommodate by providing both parties an opportunity to collaborate and identify an accommodation that is reasonable and not unduly burdensome.
Next the court points out that the ADA requires accommodating “known . . . limitations,” not known disabilities. If an employee has a disability which causes limitations that interfere with work, and the employer knows it, then the employer must try to accommodate. But if any link in that logical chain is missing, then no duty arises, and there’s no liability.
The court then identified that the employer's duty to accommodate arises only when it has actual knowledge, not merely of a diagnosis, but of a condition that imposes specific limitations on an employee’s ability to perform her job. Sometimes the connection between disability, limitation, and a need for accommodation is obvious, e.g. an employee who is blind or deaf.
The court then identified that when Tarquinio refused to allow the medical team to provide information to APL, they declined to provide information of any limitation to perform the job. The noncooperation was a defining moment in establishing APL’s duty to initiate any interactive discussion, as there was nothing to base the discussion upon. In other words, the court stated that if the employee prevents the employer from understanding her disability, then the employer’s duty never arises, and the employee’s claim fails. In the case at hand, the court then ruled that no reasonable jury could conclude that the lab knew enough to be on proper notice of Tarquinio’s needs.
The key takeaway for HR is to engage in the interactive process with transparency and respect. However, if an employee does not provide information about any limitations – whether related to a disability or not – the process cannot succeed, as the employer lacks the notice needed to address and accommodate those limitations.
Source: Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 7/17/25