Granting a Reasonable Accommodation Is Not the End of the Story: A Key Lesson from an EEOC Disability Discrimination Case
Federal employers often assume that once a reasonable accommodation is granted, the legal analysis ends. A recent EEOC administrative decision involving our client demonstrates why that assumption is mistaken. Even when an employer grants an accommodation—willingly or reluctantly—it may still be liable for disability discrimination or retaliation if it alters the employee’s duties, schedule, or working conditions in a negative way because of the disability or protected activity.
In this case, Complainant v. Austin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, EEOC No. 570-2023-01161 (November, 2024), the EEOC Administrative Judge denied a federal agency’s motion for summary judgment, allowing disability discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed. Although the agency emphasized that it granted the accommodation requested, the judge focused on what happened after the accommodation was approved. With material disputes of fact remaining, the case ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement before trial.
Background: The GME Coordinator Role and Daytime Work
Our client was a GS-13 Physician Assistant assigned to the Emergency Department at Womack Army Medical Center. He suffers from atrial fibrillation and takes medication that, according to his cardiologist, causes drops in blood pressure at night, making night shifts medically unsafe.
In addition to his clinical duties, our client served as the Graduate Medical Education (GME) Coordinator. In that role, he was responsible for scheduling, training, supervising, and evaluating multiple residency programs, including Family Medicine, OB/GYN, Podiatry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and the Military Physician Assistant Program.
These responsibilities required his consistent physical presence during regular daytime business hours. He attended meetings, coordinated with faculty and residents, addressed training issues in real time, and ensured compliance with program requirements. As a practical matter, these duties largely precluded night and weekend work. With management’s approval, and because of the operational needs of the residency programs, our client worked almost exclusively daytime weekday shifts for more than three years.
Reassignment of the GME Role and Scheduling Changes
In September 2021, the GME Coordinator role was reassigned to another provider. After that reassignment, night and weekend shifts gradually reappeared on our client’s schedule.
This change in duties became a central factual issue in the case.
What Duties Remained — and Why Physical Daytime Presence Was No Longer Required
After the GME Coordinator role was removed, the duties that remained attached to our client’s position were purely clinical Physician Assistant duties in the Emergency Department.
Unlike the GME role, those remaining duties did not require fixed daytime presence. Standard PA duties could be performed on any assigned shift, including nights and weekends.
In practical terms:
Before reassignment:
Daytime presence was operationally necessary due to administrative, supervisory, and educational responsibilities tied to residency programs.After reassignment:
Those administrative and supervisory functions were removed, leaving only shift-based clinical work that could be staffed at any hour.
The agency relied heavily on this distinction to justify reassigning our client to weekend shifts once his accommodation request was made. The Administrative Judge acknowledged that the loss of extra duties explained why the complainant was no longer shielded from nights or weekends as a matter of operational necessity. But that explanation did not resolve whether later scheduling decisions were motivated by retaliation or disability discrimination.
The Accommodation Request
In September 2022, our client formally requested a reasonable accommodation to work daytime shifts only and submitted medical documentation explaining why night work was unsafe. The agency approved the request and stopped scheduling him for night shifts.
The agency argued that this ended the inquiry: the accommodation was granted, it was effective, and therefore no discrimination or retaliation claim could survive.
The judge disagreed.
The Agency’s Summary Judgment Arguments — and Why They Failed
The agency advanced several arguments in support of summary judgment. Each was rejected as a matter of law because it raised disputed factual questions requiring a hearing.
1. “We Granted the Accommodation”
The agency’s primary argument was that it provided exactly what was requested: day shifts only. Under EEOC precedent, employees are entitled to an effective accommodation, not necessarily their preferred one, and the judge agreed that the accommodation itself was effective.
However, the judge emphasized that granting an accommodation does not immunize an employer from liability for subsequent actions. The legal question was not limited to whether nights were eliminated, but whether the agency altered the complainant’s schedule or working conditions in a way that was adverse and linked to his disability or protected activity.
That question could not be resolved on summary judgment.
2. “Weekend Assignments Were Neutral and Non-Punitive”
Second, the agency argued that weekend daytime assignments were not retaliatory or discriminatory, but instead flowed from neutral, preexisting scheduling policies. Under those policies, Emergency Department providers who do not work nights are expected to cover weekend day shifts. According to the agency, once our client was restricted to day shifts, he was treated no differently than others.
The judge held that this argument raised factual issues. Evidence in the record—including the timing of the scheduling changes, inconsistencies in how policies were applied, and statements by management—could support an inference that the scheduling changes were punitive or deterrent rather than neutral.
Whether the policies were applied evenly or selectively was a question for trial.
3. “There Is No Evidence of Discriminatory or Retaliatory Intent”
Third, the agency asserted that there was no evidence of unlawful intent. It emphasized that some scheduling decisions predated the formal EEO complaint and argued that dissatisfaction with work schedules does not equate to discrimination.
The judge rejected this framing. Retaliation can occur after protected activity other than the filing of a formal complaint, and intent is rarely established through direct evidence. Here, statements by leadership, shifting explanations for scheduling decisions, and references to “undue hardship” created credibility questions that could only be resolved through testimony and cross-examination.
4. “The Interactive Process Is Legally Irrelevant”
Finally, the agency argued that any flaws in the interactive process were legally irrelevant because an effective accommodation was ultimately provided. While it is true that defects in dialogue alone do not establish liability, the judge explained that the interactive process evidence was still relevant to motive and context.
Taken together with the scheduling changes and management statements, those issues could support a finding of discrimination or retaliation. As a result, summary judgment was inappropriate.
The Central Lesson
The critical insight from this decision is straightforward but often overlooked:
Even when an employer grants a reasonable accommodation, it can still be liable if it changes the employee’s duties, schedule, or terms of employment in a negative way because of the disability or protected activity.
Reasonable accommodation is not a box-checking exercise. Employers cannot comply on paper while retaliating or discriminating in practice. Think of it this way. Let say the employer told our client that as a condition of the reasonable accommodation he had a new duty of mopping the floors. We can readily see that the employer’s contention that it technically followed the law is foolhardy.
Resolution and Call to Action
After the denial of summary judgment and with material factual disputes remaining, the agency resolved the matter through a confidential settlement with our client before trial.
If you are a federal employee navigating a reasonable accommodation request—or an agency determining how to implement one—this case is a powerful reminder that legal compliance does not end with approval. How an employer responds afterward matters just as much.
If you have questions about disability accommodations, retaliation, or adverse changes following protected activity, experienced counsel can help you evaluate your options and protect your rights.