Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, I want to wish everyone a happy Fourth of July holiday. Be safe and have fun.

Today’s blog entry is a published decision from the Fourth Circuit, Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab decided on June 25, 2025, which can be found here, where the plaintiff with a disability loses, but there is some fantastic language in the opinion for persons with disabilities going forward. Other bloggers, such as Amy Epstein Gluck, have covered the case, but I thought I could add my own perspective. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s reasoning that plaintiff did not pursue the interactive process properly; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

I

Facts

The facts are actually pretty straightforward and can be condensed quite a bit. Plaintiff has Lyme disease and worked for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab during the pandemic. As a federal contractor, Johns Hopkins had to make sure that everyone was vaccinated. Plaintiff was terrified that if she got vaccinated, the COVID antigens would cause her body to go crazy due to immune chaos. She submitted documentation to not have to take the vaccine. However, the documentation submitted was over nine years old. A subsequent back-and-forth ensued but she provided no current medical documents and no confirmation from her doctor. She also never consented to releasing her medical records. Plaintiff never gave the employer information that she had a condition contraindicated for receiving the COVID-19 vaccination according to CDC guidelines. In the end, plaintiff never got vaccinated and never got an exemption. Accordingly, the lab fired her. She sued alleging violations of the ADA.

II

Court’s Reasoning That Plaintiff Did Not Pursue The Interactive Process Properly

1. To make out a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff has to show that: 1) she was disabled; 2) the employer had notice of her disability; 3) she could perform the essential functions of her position with a reasonable accommodation; and 4) the employer refused to make such an accommodation. #4 requires an employer’s good-faith participation in the interactive process.
2. The interactive process is not an end in and of itself.
3. It is doubtful that an employer has a complete defense whenever it can blame the employee for a breakdown in that process.
4. The interactive process helps the employer discharge their duty to accommodate by giving employers and employees a chance to work together to figure out what accommodation, if any, is reasonable and not unduly burdensome.
5. An employer who doesn’t engage in good faith with the interactive process violates the ADA so long as a reasonable accommodation is possible.
6. An employer disrupting or sabotaging the process by which accommodations are determined is not providing its disabled employee with the equal opportunity the ADA mandates.
7. The interactive process gives the employer a chance to confirm that it has the duty to accommodate to begin with.
8. The ADA requires accommodating known limitations not known disabilities.
9. If an employee has a disability causing limitations that interfere with work and the employer knows it, then the employer must try to accommodate. However, if any link in that logical chain is missing, no duty arises and no liability.
10. The interactive process helps employers to make that threshold call. Employers do not need to take the employee’s word for it that the employee has a disability that may require “special accommodation,” (“special accommodation,” is the term that appears in the opinion).
11. An employer has the right to confirm whether a need for an accommodation exists, which is why the implementing regulations specify that a goal of the interactive process is to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability.
12. To be liable for failure to accommodate, an employer must know that an employee’s disability limits her in a way that needs accommodating, which is the central purpose of the interactive process.
13. Sometimes, the connection between disability, limitation, and need for the accommodation is obvious. For example, a blind employee would not have to furnish medical records in order to establish that he needed some accommodation to be able to review written reports.
14. When the need for accommodation is clear, and a reasonable accommodation is evident, the onus is on the employer to act.
15. The interactive process is a means, not an end.
16. Neither the employer nor the employee can rest on a breakdown in the interactive process without connecting that breakdown to an element of failure to accommodate liability.
17. If the employer sabotages the interactive process to avoid discharging a duty, then the employee can use that sabotage to show that the employer refused an accommodation.
18. If the employee prevents the employer from understanding her disability, then the employer’s duty to accommodate never arises, and the employee’s claim fails.
19. While plaintiff told the lab about her disability, she never showed the lab that she was limited in a way that required accommodation. For example, she never explained, beyond opaque references to “immune dysregulation,” why her disability made COVID-19 vaccination risky.
20. It could well be a different story if plaintiff had allowed the lab to contact her medical providers. In that case, it is possible that those medical providers could have explained that plaintiff’s had an autoimmune disease so severe that, in their judgment, plaintiff was more likely to be harmed by the COVID-19 vaccine then by COVID itself. However, plaintiff refused to let that conversation happen.
21. No reasonable jury could conclude that the lab knew enough to be on proper notice of plaintiff’s needs. Considering plaintiff’s unusual medical profile, the lab had the right to ask for more objective evidence.
22. Since plaintiff prevented the lab from learning why her condition required the accommodation she asked for, plaintiff cannot show that the lab had a duty to accommodate.

III

Thoughts/Takeaways

1. Plaintiff loses this one, but there is lots of great language in the opinion to benefit persons with disabilities going forward.
2. The decision is published.
3. The interactive process is not an end in and of itself.
4. An employer does not have a complete defense whenever it can blame the breakdown on the interactive process on the employee.
5. The employer does not have a right to ask for documentation for every reasonable accommodation request regardless of that person’s disability.
6. The key for the employee is showing a connection between the disability, their limitation, and the need for the accommodation.
7. The breakdown of the interactive process is not enough. In order for the breakdown of the interactive process to be effectively used, the breakdown have to be tied to an element of the failure to accommodate.
8. If an employee prevents the employer from understanding her disability, then the employer’s duty to accommodate never arises.
9. While an employer has a perfect right to understand the disability so that it can make an accommodation, an employer should not go on a fishing expedition for information. Keep any such requests narrowly focused on the particular facts of the situation.
10. I have seen individuals with disabilities get very protective about disclosing their disability. I get that. However, being so protective can get in the way of getting needed accommodations/modifications.
11. In the Fourth Circuit, a failure to accommodate is a separate cause of action.
12. Under the ADA, a reasonable accommodation (Title I)/reasonable modification (Title II and III), is anything that does not constitute an undue hardship (Title I)/undue burden (Title II and III). The terms “reasonable accommodation,” and “reasonable modifications,” mean the same thing. The terms undue hardship and undue burden are also synonymous with each other.
13. Regardless of ADA Title, the interactive process is always a good idea.
14. Stay away from the term “special accommodation,” as the disability community can find that term quite insulting. There is nothing special about needing accommodations/modification per the ADA to get to the same starting line as a person without a disability.