The Second Circuit issued a decision yesterday that reinforces a principle employers sometimes forget in the accommodation process: doing something is not the same as doing enough.
In Raymond v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, the court vacated summary judgment for the employer on an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. The employee had a vein condition that restricted his ability to drive for prolonged periods. The employer removed four facilities from his driving route. The problem was that removing those four stops did not actually bring his remaining route within the medical restriction his doctor had identified according to the court.
The court held that an accommodation that does not enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job is not a reasonable accommodation, regardless of the employer’s good intentions.
The Facts
Sean Raymond worked for the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for nearly 30 years. His most recent role was Outreach Coordinator, which required him to drive to healthcare facilities on Long Island to give presentations about union benefits. In 2017, after developing a serious vein condition, his doctor restricted him from driving more than 30 minutes at a time.
When Raymond’s condition first surfaced, the employer reassigned him to a zone with less driving, and things worked fine for two years. Then the employer reshuffled zones and placed Raymond in a geographically larger territory covering Long Island. Raymond asked to be moved back to a smaller zone. The employer refused. When his condition worsened and his doctor formalized the 30-minute driving restriction, Raymond asked again for accommodations. The employer responded by removing the four farthest facilities from his route.
The catch: many of the remaining facilities in his territory still required drives of more than 30 minutes. Raymond pointed this out and proposed alternatives, including reassignment to a different zone or a different position. The employer declined without engaging with either proposal. It told Raymond that his restrictions would “negatively impact” his ability to perform the essential functions of his job, and that its “determination has not changed.” Raymond applied for disability leave, and the employer immediately terminated him. The termination letter told him he could reapply “if in the future” he was “medically cleared to return to employment without restrictions.”
The Court’s Analysis
The Second Circuit applied familiar ADA accommodation principles but did so in a way that should get employers’ attention.
The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it found that removing the four farthest stops constituted a reasonable accommodation. The appeals court explained that a reasonable accommodation must be “effective,” meaning it must actually enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
An accommodation that partially addresses an employee’s restrictions but leaves significant barriers in place does not satisfy the ADA.
Here, removing the four stops did not bring the remaining route within the employee’s 30-minute driving restriction. The accommodation reduced the problem but did not solve it. That is not enough according to the court.
The court also noted that the employer’s process was deficient. Raymond wrote to HR proposing two alternatives: reassignment to a zone with shorter drives, or transfer to a different position that did not require extended driving. The employer rejected both without explanation and without engaging in any further analysis. It did not address whether those proposals were feasible, and it did not suggest alternatives of its own.
This tracks a broader pattern in the Second Circuit’s recent ADA jurisprudence. Earlier this year, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the same court held that an employee can qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without one. Together, Tudor and Raymond signal that the Second Circuit is taking an expansive view of employer accommodation obligations and will closely scrutinize whether the employer genuinely engaged with the process.
Why This Matters for Employers
This decision matters because it targets an instinct some employers have: offer something, document that you offered it, and move on. If the “something” does not actually work, the employer has not satisfied its obligation. An accommodation that looks good on paper but leaves the employee unable to perform the job is not reasonable, and a court will not credit it simply because the employer acted in good faith.
The employer here also made a documentation mistake that employers should note. Its termination letter said Raymond could come back when he was cleared “without restrictions.” The court flagged this language because requiring an employee to return without any restrictions is, in the court’s words, a “per se violation of the ADA.” Although the jury found for the employer on the discrimination claim at trial, that letter created unnecessary exposure.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
When you provide an accommodation, verify that it actually resolves the limitation. If an employee has a driving restriction of 30 minutes and your accommodation still requires drives longer than 30 minutes, you have not accommodated the restriction. Partial credit is not available here.
When an employee proposes alternative accommodations, engage with them. You do not have to grant every request. But you do need to explain why a proposed alternative will not work or suggest a different option.
Document the interactive process in real time. Courts expect genuine back-and-forth, and they expect it to be memorialized.
Review your termination letters and separation communications for language that conditions return to work on being “cleared without restrictions.”