This week’s blog entry will be the last substantive blog entry of the calendar year. As mentioned previously, I will put up the greatest hits of 2025 for the Understanding the ADA blog the week of Christmas.

 

Turning to the blog entry for the week, on November 19, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied William Beaumont Hospital’s motion to reconsider, which can be found here. We have blogged previously the court’s decision on the summary judgment motions, here. There is no need to go into the facts as we have previously blogged on it, so the categories for this blog entry are: overview of when a motion for reconsideration should be granted; when can an employer can request what updated medical documentation; whether the initial care coordinator position was vacant is a question of fact; with respect to the initial care coordinator position, William Beaumont Hospital was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process; and thought/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

 

I

Overview of When a Motion for Reconsideration Should Be Granted

 

  1. A motion for reconsideration should not be used for a second bite of the apple.
  2. Defendant’s original motion for summary judgment did not make the argument that it had no duty to accommodate until the plaintiff provided the requested medical documentation.
  3. Defendant’s argument for summary judgment rested on several other grounds, and not on the alleged requirement for medical documentation or its necessity. If it was truly a necessity as defendant now asserts, the court would expect that the point should have been front and center during the initial consideration of the issue and it was not. Therefore, it is within the court’s right to deny the motion for reconsideration on procedural grounds alone. That said, the court proceeds to address the merits, as discussed in the below categories, because that discussion is undoubtedly relevant to the remaining issues at trial.

 

 

 

II

When Can an Employer Request Updated Medical Documentation

 

  1. Case law indicates that an employer, as part of the interactive process, may request documentation from the employee to verify that they have a disability, but it says nothing about when that documentation is due as a matter of law.
  2. The case law also does not state that an employer can take no action on a plaintiff’s request or pause the interactive process entirely when it is already on notice of an employee’s disability.
  3. An employer’s requirement of providing paperwork is permissible when necessary to establish that an employee’s disability is medically supportive in the first place.
  4. Defendant was already aware that plaintiff had a medically diagnosed disability, and she had already provided them medical paperwork to that effect both when receiving a prior reasonable accommodation and when taking FMLA leave.
  5. A jury could find that imposing a requirement to provide the defendant with updated medical documentation before they took any action (emphasis in opinion), on her request to be transferred to a position with fewer hours as bad faith where the defendant (a hospital, no less, words precisely in the opinion), had relevant information about her disability in their possession already.
  6. There is no general requirement as a matter of law that a plaintiff who has already provided medical documentation must provide updated medical documentation prior to triggering any obligation on the part of the employer to continue the interactive process.
  7. If defendant wishes to make the factual argument that this specific (emphasis in opinion), interactive process was caused entirely while they waited for updated paperwork, for them to be entitled to summary judgment, they will still have to prove that such a policy existed at Beaumont, that Beaumont in fact applied such a policy to the plaintiff and relied on that rationale to pause the interactive process, that such a policy was applied in good faith to the plaintiff under the circumstances, and/or that they clearly communicated that requirement during the interactive process.
  8. Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Beaumont never told the plaintiff that the medical form was necessary for the mandatory reassignment process. Instead, plaintiff was told that the form would “assist,” or “expedite,” reassignment in some undescribed way.
  9. The EEOC also raises factual questions concerning whether a policy requiring employees to provide documentation was generally in place, thereby raising the question of why it was necessary to ask the plaintiff specifically for a new, updated medical form.
  10. Whether a new “request form,” was actually necessary for Beaumont to make effort to transfer her to a part-time role as an accommodation is a question best left to the jury, who could find that Beaumont “unreasonably stalled,” plaintiff’s request in light of the information already in their possession.
  11. There is also evidence in the record indicating Beaumont firmly stated that it would consider plaintiff for vacant positions despite not having updated paperwork, and that it acted as though it did not need a form, thereby raising factual issues about their argument that they required her to provide the paperwork first and relied on that rationale.
  12. The ability to apply for a position and a request to be transferred as an accommodation are two entirely different things.
  13. The EEOC identified multiple communications indicating that plaintiff should go ahead and apply to open positions as an accommodation, and that Beaumont did not mention to her a requirement that she first had to submit new paperwork. A reasonable jury can read that evidence as stating that plaintiff was always allowed to apply to positions to move the process along, and that medical documentation was not required to trigger an “expedited,” process for being considered. That is, she could have provided medical documentation to Beaumont at some later point while the interactive process continued in the meantime.

 

 

 

III

Whether The Initial Care Coordinator Position Was Vacant Is a Question of Fact

 

  1. Beaumont’s arguments that the positions were not vacant at the time plaintiff submitted her updated medical form appeared nowhere in the original argument for summary judgment and therefore, is not properly brought in a motion for reconsideration.
  2. The no vacancy argument of Beaumont fundamentally rests on the factual disputes pertaining to: 1) whether Beaumont clearly communicated to the plaintiff that it would not consider her for any open position until the moment she provided updated documentation; 2) whether such a policy in fact existed; 3) whether such a policy would properly apply to the plaintiff; and 4) whether the lack of updated medical information was the reason that Beaumont did not consider her for those positions.

 

 

 

IV

With Respect to the Initial Care Coordinator Position, William Beaumont Hospital Is Responsible for the Breakdown in the Interactive Process

 

  1. The undisputed evidence is that Beaumont personnel did not reject plaintiff’s candidacy for the initial care position for lack of a medical accommodation form. Instead, Beaumont personnel declined to consider the application because of the belief that the hiring manager already had two other candidates in mind.
  2. When the interactive process is triggered but not successfully resolved, courts have to isolate the cause of the breakdown and then assign responsibility to whoever blows up the interactive process.
  3. Since the evidence showed that the absence of a medical form had nothing to do with Beaumont’s rejection of plaintiff’s application for the first care coordinator vacancy, it is irrelevant to their liability as to that position because responsibility for cutting short the interactive process undisputedly lies with Beaumont alone.

 

 

 

 

V

Thoughts/Takeaways

 

  1. If you are going to make a motion for reconsideration, the arguments in that motion need to have been made before that point in time.
  2. An employer cannot pause the interactive process or unreasonably delay it when it is already on notice of an employee’s disability.
  3. Requesting further medical documentation is permissible if used to establish that an employee’s disability is supported by the medical evidence in the first place.
  4. Asking for excessive documentation is an indicator of bad faith. See also this blog entry.
  5. No requirement as a matter of law exists, that a plaintiff who has already provided medical documentation must provide updated medical documentation prior to triggering an obligation on the part of the employer to continue the interactive process.
  6. The ability to apply for a position in the ability to request to be transferred as an accommodation are entirely two different things.
  7. An employer does not get the right to delay or not pursue the interactive process when it is already on notice of an employee’s disability.
  8. Remember, magic words are not required to initiate the interactive process. However, also remember just what words are required can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so be sure to check that.
  9. The party that blows up the interactive process bears the ultimate responsibility.