WASHINGTON — Accommodation lawsuits rarely arise because employees ask for something unreasonable. More often, they arise because employers say “no” too quickly without documenting their decision-making process.

During a recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) webinar, Tony Dalimonte, an employment attorney with Foster Swift Collins & Smith in Michigan, walked small-business owners through the employment law changes and risks they need to understand in 2026.

In Part 1, we explored how handbooks can either help or hurt employers, including dry cleaners, and looked at common wage and hour pitfalls. Today, we’ll focus on discrimination claims that may land employers on the bad side of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC has made clear it intends to scrutinize all discrimination claims regardless of an employee’s background, Dalimonte says. The agency has updated its guidance to warn employers that limiting, segregating or classifying employees based on protected characteristics likely violates federal law.

“Even well-intentioned decisions, if they take protected characteristics into account, can create risk,” he says.

Under Title VII’s “motivating factor” standard, if a protected characteristic plays any role in an employment decision — even if it’s not the main reason — that decision can be unlawful.

“The takeaway is straightforward,” Dalimonte says. “You should not be taking protected characteristics into account when making employment decisions. Focus on performance, conduct, qualifications and documented business reasons.”

The EEOC is particularly focused on religious accommodation in 2026, and the legal standards have changed.

Under Title VII, Dalimonte says, employers must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing so creates undue hardship. In 2023, however, the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy raised the bar for denying accommodations.

Prior to Groff, many employers could deny accommodations if they reflected more than a minor inconvenience. The Supreme Court has rejected that approach.

“The Court said you have to show actual undue hardship to the company,” Dalimonte says. “That means actual financial disruption and actual operational disruption.”

Inconvenience, co-worker frustration and minor operational disruptions likely won’t be enough anymore, he says. Employers must demonstrate a substantial burden in the context of their specific business.

When it comes to religious accommodation requests, Dalimonte recommends several steps:

• Take every request seriously.
• Explore alternatives such as shift swaps, adjusted duties or temporary coverage arrangements.
• Analyze the actual business impact.
• If denying a request, document why and review what impact the accommodation would have on the entire business.

“You need to slow down and ask, ‘Can shifts be swapped? Can duties be adjusted? Can coverage be rearranged, even if it’s just temporarily?’” Dalimonte says.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to engage in what’s called the “interactive process,” Dalimonte says, when accommodation requests arise.

“At its core, it’s a good-faith back and forth with the employee to see if there are reasonable accommodations that will allow them to perform the essential functions of the job,” he says.

Critically, employees don’t need to use “magic words” or fill out specific forms. Any indication that a medical condition is affecting work can trigger an employer’s obligations.

“It can be plainly apparent that someone’s having a medical issue,” Dalimonte says. “They’re limping around the workplace or struggling after an injury. Those can trigger your obligation even if the employee doesn’t explicitly ask for an accommodation.”

A common scenario that creates legal problems, he says, is an employee who struggles due to a medical condition, and a manager who says the company doesn’t have light duty available. The employee is then terminated.

“That’s where employers get in trouble,” Dalimonte says. “The law expects a conversation. It expects you to engage in the interactive process.”

Dalimonte recommends following five steps when accommodation requests arise.

First, recognize the request. Notice when employees ask for help or mention they need adjustments like standing desks or more frequent breaks.

Second, gather information. Most employers aren’t doctors and shouldn’t guess about medical conditions or limitations.

“When I hear speculation about what an employee can or can’t do without any medical documentation, I call time out,” Dalimonte says. “Ask the employee to get documentation from their medical provider explaining what their work restrictions are.”

Third, engage in the interactive process collaboratively. Have conversations about potential accommodations.

“If someone asks for an accommodation, that’s not the only accommodation you have to provide,” he says. “At the end of the day, the company makes the final decision. But you have to engage in the process in good faith.”

Fourth, analyze accommodation options. Consider remote work, modified schedules, additional breaks or temporary transfers to different positions.

Fifth, implement and document the decision. How well employers engage in the interactive process becomes central to any disability lawsuit.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has strengthened protections for pregnant employees.

“What I’ve found in practice is that accommodations related to pregnancy almost always should be granted,” Dalimonte says. “There are some you need to provide without even asking for medical documentation.”

Requests for different schedules, more breaks or modified duties should be recognized early and accommodated.

The EEOC’s August 2025 press release, “200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work,” signaled the agency’s priorities clearly, Dalimonte says. The EEOC stated it’s committed to ensuring people don’t have to choose between their paycheck and their faith.

“When unsure, pause and document,” he says. “Most employment lawsuits are preventable. The goal isn’t perfection — it’s awareness, consistency and documentation.”

Come back Tuesday for the conclusion, where we’ll examine practical steps businesses can take immediately to reduce legal risk. For Part 1 of this series, click HERE.