Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
September 9, 2025
In a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Court revived an employee’s failure-to-accommodate (disability) claim when the employer took nearly six months to evaluate her request. See Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, No. 24-20269 (May 16, 2025).
Factual Background
Alisha Strife served in the U.S. Army. While deployed to Kuwait and Iraq, she sustained shoulder, leg, and brain injuries. She later was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and was medically discharged from the Army in May 2005.
In 2012, Strife joined the Aldine Independent School District (AISD), where she worked over the years as a teacher, Testing Coordinator, and member of AISD’s Human Resources department.
Strife’s disabilities progressed and, in 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) classified her as disabled (in varying percentages) based on PTSD, depression, and knee and ankle problems.
Strife applied for and received a certified service dog, Inde, who assists Strife with her physical and psychological disabilities by helping her maintain her balance and gait, protecting her from falling, and mitigating acute PTSD symptoms.
On August 30, 2022, Strife asked AISD to accommodate her disabilities by allowing Inde to accompany her at work.
AISD ultimately agreed to the accommodation. However, that agreement came nearly six months later, in late February 2023, and only after (1) AISD required further documentation from several of Strife’s health care providers; (2) AISD demanded that Strife submit to a physical examination by an AISD-appointed physician; (3) Strife filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency; (4) Strife filed suit against AISD in court alleging that AISD violated federal and state disability laws; and (5) a judge directed the parties to complete the “interactive process” as soon as possible.
The trial court dismissed Strife’s claims before trial. As to her failure-to-accommodate claim, the trial court focused on what Strife experienced while AISD considered her request, and concluded that because she (1) failed to allege that she suffered an injury during the six-month period; (2) was disabled prior to requesting her accommodation; and (3) did not experience any changes in the terms and conditions of her employment, her allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that AISD “failed to make reasonable accommodations.” Strife appealed.
The Fifth Circuit Revives Strife’s Failure-to-Accommodate Claim
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit revived Strife’s failure-to-accommodate claim,[1] finding that AISD’s actions did not merely amount to delay; they exhibited a lack of good faith “to meaningfully evaluate her request in an appropriate and timely manner.” In support of this conclusion, the Court noted that Strife asked AISD only to allow her to have and use a service dog at work. She did not ask AISD to procure the dog or modify the workplace. AISD’s delay in granting the request for accommodation “undoubtedly forced Strife to work under suboptimal conditions for those six months.”
The Court further noted that, though requesting an independent medical exam is not inherently unreasonable, Strife claims that she repeatedly provided AISD with information confirming her disabilities and need for an accommodation.
The Court found more support for its conclusion of bad faith in Strife’s allegations that AISD failed to offer her any accommodations and granted her request only after she commenced litigation, within weeks of a court-scheduled injunction hearing.
Lastly, the Court pointed out that the trial court used a different and incorrect approach in dismissing Strife’s claim. The relevant question is not whether Strife experienced injuries while waiting for her accommodation, but whether AISD “failed to make reasonable accommodations” after being informed of Strife’s limitations.
The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen whether Strife ultimately will prevail on her failure-to-accommodate claim.
Employer Takeaways
Employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodations for known disabilities, unless such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. When faced with an accommodation request, employers must engage with the employee in an interactive process – a two-way street of good faith, ongoing dialogue without unreasonable delay. Employers can require medical documentation – and sometimes an independent medical evaluation – in support of an accommodation request; however, those requests should be reserved for situations when a disability or the need for an accommodation are not obvious and only after they have reviewed all documentation that the employee already has provided in support of the accommodation request. A delayed response to an accommodation request can violate the law, even when an employer ultimately grants the request.
This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] The Court affirmed the dismissal of Strife’s disability discrimination claim, retaliation, hostile work environment claim, and interference claims.
