Ling-yi Tsai, our HRTech expert, brings decades of experience assisting organizations in driving change through technology. She specializes in HR analytics tools and the integration of technology across recruitment, onboarding, and talent management processes. Having navigated complex compliance landscapes for Fortune 500 companies, she offers a unique perspective on how digital systems can prevent the human errors that lead to costly litigation. In this discussion, we explore the critical intersection of leadership transitions, disability accommodations, and the legal frameworks that protect workers from arbitrary policy shifts.
When leadership changes occur, how should a company ensure that existing disability accommodations, such as the use of walkers or seating breaks, are not arbitrarily rescinded? What specific documentation protocols prevent a new manager from overriding a previously established medical agreement?
To prevent the kind of breakdown we saw in the Texas Kroger case, where an accommodation was honored from 2020 through July 2023 and then suddenly revoked, a company must centralize its accommodation records. It is vital to move away from “handshake agreements” between an employee and a specific manager; instead, the HRIS (Human Resources Information System) should serve as the single source of truth. When a new manager is onboarded, their transition checklist must include a review of all active accommodations within their department to ensure continuity. Documentation should include the initial medical certification, the signed “Accommodation Agreement” detailing specific tools like walkers or stools, and a history of the interactive process. By maintaining a digital audit trail that requires HR approval before any modification, you effectively strip a lone manager of the power to unilaterally override a medical necessity.
If a supervisor cites a “no sitting” policy to deny an accommodation, what steps must be taken to initiate a proper interactive process? How do you effectively balance corporate appearance or efficiency standards against the legal requirement to modify internal policies?
The moment a supervisor mentions a “no sitting” policy as a hard barrier, HR must intervene to explain that policy modifications are, by definition, a form of reasonable accommodation. The first step is to sit down with the employee and their medical documentation to identify the specific functional limitations, such as the neuropathy mentioned in recent litigation. You balance corporate standards by testing the accommodation: if a front-desk clerk or a grocer can still perform 100% of their essential duties while seated, the “appearance” of the worker is legally secondary to their right to work. We often see that providing a stool costs less than $100, whereas an EEOC lawsuit or a settlement for back pay and emotional distress can cost hundreds of thousands. Managers need to understand that “efficiency” is actually hindered when a trained, reliable employee is forced out of the workforce over a chair.
What are the legal and operational risks of ignoring an employee’s medical documentation or forcing them onto leave until they can work without restrictions? How can HR departments better train frontline managers to recognize when a policy modification is a required accommodation rather than a discretionary perk?
Ignoring medical documentation is an express lane to an ADA violation and a potential lawsuit from the EEOC, as we’ve seen in several recent high-profile cases. When you force an employee onto leave until they are “100% healed,” you are essentially failing to engage in the interactive process, which is a standalone legal requirement. Operationally, this creates a toxic culture where employees fear reporting injuries, leading to higher turnover and lower morale across the entire team. HR should train managers using “Recognition Triggers”—teaching them that any time an employee mentions a medical struggle or a need for a change in how they work, the manager must stop and say, “Let’s talk to HR about how we can support you.” This shifts the mindset from a manager granting a “favor” or a “perk” to a company fulfilling a legal and ethical obligation.
In environments where standing is traditionally viewed as an essential function, how should a business determine if providing a chair or stool constitutes an “undue hardship”? What objective criteria should be used to evaluate if an employee can perform their core duties while seated?
Determining “undue hardship” requires an objective, data-driven analysis of the job’s physical requirements rather than a reliance on tradition. We use a “Functional Job Analysis” to determine if a task—like scanning items or checking IDs—actually requires the person to be upright to reach equipment or maintain safety. If the core duties can be reached and performed from a seated position without significant expense or disruption to the workflow, the “hardship” argument usually fails. You must ask: Does the chair block a fire exit? Does it prevent the employee from reaching the terminal? If the answer is “no,” then the tradition of standing is simply a preference, not a business necessity, and certainly not an undue hardship.
When an employee is placed on an “unapproved leave of absence” due to a dispute over physical accommodations, what are the immediate red flags for HR? How can a company bridge the communication gap between a manager’s expectations and a worker’s documented physical limitations?
The biggest red flag is when an employee who was previously productive suddenly finds themselves on “unapproved leave” shortly after a management change. This almost always indicates a breakdown in the interactive process or a lack of understanding regarding the ADA. To bridge this gap, HR must act as a neutral mediator, bringing the manager and the employee together to review the medical restrictions alongside the job description. In the Kroger situation, the employee was told to take leave until she could work without an accommodation, which is a major red flag that the manager didn’t understand that accommodations are meant to be permanent if the condition is permanent. Clear, written communication that translates medical jargon into “workplace abilities” helps managers see what the employee can do, rather than focusing solely on their limitations.
What is your forecast for ADA compliance and litigation trends?
I predict a significant rise in EEOC-led litigation specifically targeting “blanket policies” like the “no sitting” rules or “100% healed” requirements. As the workforce ages and more employees deal with long-term physical impairments, the EEOC will continue to use cases like those against Kroger and Walmart to send a message that managerial turnover is no excuse for non-compliance. Companies will be forced to invest more heavily in HR technology that tracks and flags accommodation shifts automatically. We are moving toward a landscape where “I didn’t know the previous manager allowed it” will no longer be a valid legal defense, and businesses will need to be much more proactive in training frontline leaders.