Your Accommodation Request Was Denied: A Practical Review Checklist

Identify what the employer actually decided

An accommodation denial may mean the employer does not understand the limitation, needs more information, rejects a particular option or believes no reasonable effective adjustment is available. Do not assume those explanations are equivalent. Ask for the reason and the facts supporting it.

Read the decision carefully and compare it with your request. Does it describe the right job duties and barrier? Does it address the option you proposed? Does it offer an alternative? Does it identify an internal review procedure? A short denial can leave several of these questions unanswered.

Begin with a factual response rather than immediately resubmitting the same request in stronger language. If the employer misunderstood the problem, clarification may matter more than emphasis. If the disagreement concerns essential functions or effectiveness, the response needs to address those specific points.

Check whether the work barrier was understood

Write a concise description of what the condition makes difficult and under which work circumstances. Compare it with the employer's explanation. If the decision discusses a different barrier, identify the mismatch.

For a hypothetical example, an employee requests a change because unpredictable interruptions prevent completion of a required detailed review. The employer responds that a different chair would be provided. The employee should explain why seating does not address the stated interruption barrier, while remaining open to other options that might.

The JAN negotiation guide recommends asking why a request was denied and considering clarification, additional information or alternatives. That approach does not mean every denial is correct. It gives you a way to identify what needs to be reconsidered.

Evaluate an alternative by effectiveness

The EEOC accommodation guidance explains that an employer may choose among effective options. A different arrangement is therefore not automatically a failure to accommodate. The key practical question is whether it addresses the relevant barrier.

If the alternative seems ineffective, explain the reason with task-level detail. Ask whether a trial is appropriate and how its effectiveness would be reviewed. Do not agree that an option works simply to end a difficult conversation, but do not reject it solely because it differs from your initial preference.

Record what success would look like: completing the essential review accurately, accessing a required system or performing the task within the relevant conditions. A trial without an evaluation method can leave both sides arguing from impressions. A defined review point makes it easier to discuss what actually happened.

Use a denial-review worksheet

Work through the decision before drafting a response. The worksheet should identify gaps, not presume the outcome.

Do not insert a legal conclusion in every field. A reviewer can act more readily on “The decision assumes I must lift this item, but the current duty description identifies a different method” than on “The entire decision is obviously illegal.”

Keep the original decision separate from your annotations. If a telephone explanation adds a new reason, summarize it in a follow-up and ask for confirmation. A changing explanation may need review, but first establish what the employer is actually saying rather than combining several conversations into a reason nobody expressly gave.

Submit a focused follow-up

Address the stated reason and request a next step. If additional medical information is relevant, use the designated channel rather than attaching a broad medical history to a general email.

I am requesting clarification or review of the decision dated [date]. My original request addressed [specific barrier]. The decision states [reason]. I believe the following point needs correction or further consideration: [fact or missing information]. I would like to discuss [alternative or further review] and how its effectiveness would be evaluated. Please confirm the applicable review process and the work arrangement that applies while this is considered.

Avoid assuming that submitting the follow-up authorizes a different schedule, absence or work method. Ask for clear instructions if the current arrangement creates a practical conflict. Where health restrictions or employment consequences are urgent, obtain appropriate professional assistance rather than relying on an unresolved email exchange.

Keep internal review and external options distinct

An internal reconsideration may resolve the issue, but it is not automatically the same as an external discrimination process. The EEOC timing guidance explains that internal dispute efforts generally do not extend charge deadlines. Federal employees instead should consult the agency EEO process.

Identify which employment system applies before choosing a route. A federal employee, county employee and private employee should not all follow a generic federal-agency appeal checklist. If a decision includes a notice, read its actual instructions and seek clarification promptly.

Keep the denial, your response, supporting information and subsequent decision together. The immediate objective is a clear, reviewable explanation of the barrier and the options considered. That record supports a constructive discussion and, if necessary, helps a qualified reviewer understand exactly where the disagreement remains.

Related questions