How employers respond to disability accommodation requests can have significant implications for workplace inclusion, employee trust, and legal risk. A discrimination trial involving the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) highlights why clear procedures and respectful communication matter throughout the accommodation process.
The case, Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, concerns a job applicant who alleged that SHRM withdrew a job offer after she requested permission to bring her service dog to the workplace. According to her complaint, the dog helps her manage Type 1 diabetes, including episodes of hypoglycemia.
The applicant sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Virginia Human Rights Act. SHRM disputed the allegations and maintained that it had followed the appropriate process for considering reasonable accommodations.
A federal judge denied SHRM’s motion for summary judgment after finding genuine disputes over material facts, allowing the case to proceed to trial. That decision did not determine whether discrimination had occurred.
Why Did the Accommodation Request Become a Legal Dispute?
According to court filings, SHRM argued that the applicant rejected alternative accommodations and did not provide sufficient information connecting her disability to the role’s essential functions. The organisation said it had attempted to identify an accommodation that would address the needs of both parties.
The applicant’s position differed, and the dispute proceeded to trial.
The case highlights a recurring challenge for HR teams: employers may need to assess different ways of accommodating a disability, but the process must be handled carefully, with clear communication and appropriate documentation.
Under the ADA, employers generally must consider reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The assessment depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
Why Consistent HR Procedures Matter
One issue raised in the litigation concerned how SHRM handled the request internally. According to a plaintiff’s court filing discussed by HR Dive, the organisation’s handling of the request differed from the process outlined in its own policies.
Employment expert Ashley Herd told HR Dive that failing to follow established procedures can make a legal dispute more difficult to manage.
For HR teams, the lesson is straightforward: accommodation procedures should clearly identify who receives requests, who evaluates them, what documentation may be needed, and how decisions are recorded. Escalating a complex matter may be appropriate, but doing so should not mean bypassing essential steps without good reason.
Written policies also need to reflect actual workplace practices. A procedure that exists only on paper offers limited protection if managers and HR leaders do not follow it consistently.
How HR Communicates Matters
The case also highlights the importance of language when responding to accommodation requests.
Herd told HR Dive that framing a request as a problem to overcome can make applicants feel that their disability is being treated as an inconvenience. She encouraged employers to approach the conversation with a more constructive question: how might the accommodation work?
This does not mean every requested accommodation must automatically be approved. Employers may need to explore alternatives, request relevant information, or assess whether a particular arrangement would create an undue hardship. However, communication should remain respectful, specific, and focused on finding a workable solution.
A dismissive or overly adversarial response can undermine trust and make an already difficult conversation more contentious.
Practical Steps for HR Teams
HR leaders can use cases like this to review their accommodation processes and identify potential gaps.
- Document requests and discussions: Keep clear records of the request, relevant information, options considered, and decisions made.
- Follow established procedures: Ensure managers know where to direct requests and when to involve the appropriate HR personnel.
- Consider each case individually: Avoid assumptions about a person's needs or the effect of an accommodation before assessing the circumstances.
- Communicate respectfully: Explain questions, concerns, and decisions in clear language without treating the request as a burden.
- Evaluate alternatives thoughtfully: Where a requested accommodation presents a legitimate concern, engage in a meaningful discussion about possible alternatives.
- Train managers and HR teams: Make sure those involved understand the organisation’s policies and their responsibilities under applicable disability laws.
The Takeaway for HR Leaders
The SHRM case illustrates why accommodation decisions involve more than determining whether a particular request can be approved. The process, documentation, consistency of internal procedures, and tone of communication can all become important when a decision is challenged.
For HR teams, reviewing these practices before a dispute arises can help create a more inclusive workplace and support more consistent, defensible decision-making.
Source: HR Dive, reporting on Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management. The case allegations and the parties’ positions are not findings of liability.
