A carefully constructed work routine, established over years to accommodate a disability and foster productivity, can be shattered in an instant with a single managerial decision, leaving a dedicated employee without a job and an employer facing legal consequences. This scenario highlights a critical question in modern workplace law: once granted, can a reasonable accommodation be taken away? The answer is far from simple and underscores a fundamental, and often misunderstood, aspect of an employer’s legal duties.
When Business as Usual Is No Longer an Option
For employees with disabilities or specific religious needs, a reasonable accommodation is not a perk but a vital tool that ensures equal opportunity and job security. These arrangements can range from modified work schedules to specialized equipment or, as in one recent case, adherence to a consistent routine. When a new manager arrives and unilaterally dismantles such a long-standing agreement, it can set off a chain reaction of legal and ethical challenges that ripple through an organization.
This sudden disruption of “business as usual” raises significant concerns about the stability of employment for vulnerable workers. The core issue revolves around whether an accommodation is a permanent fixture or a temporary privilege subject to the whims of new leadership. Federal law provides a clear framework, but its application is often tested in situations where organizational changes clash with established employee support systems.
The High Stakes of Revoking an Accommodation
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stands as a cornerstone of employee rights, mandating that employers provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. A recent settlement involving Walmart powerfully illustrates the consequences of failing to uphold this duty. The company agreed to a $60,000 settlement after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit, alleging it had unlawfully revoked an accommodation for a long-term employee.
The case centered on a stocker with cognitive disabilities who, since 2017, had performed her job successfully using a consistent, routine-based work plan. However, a management change in 2020 led to this accommodation being rescinded. Her tasks were altered daily, and her subsequent termination for “insubordination” after resisting a change triggered the EEOC’s intervention. This situation connects directly to broader concerns about fair treatment, demonstrating how a failure to respect established accommodations can jeopardize an individual’s livelihood.
The New Boss Effect on Existing Accommodations
A common catalyst for the withdrawal of workplace accommodations is the arrival of new supervisors who may be unfamiliar with, or unsupportive of, existing arrangements. The Walmart stocker’s situation is a textbook example. Her routine-based support system had been effective for years, but its value was dismissed by new leadership, leading directly to a legal challenge and a significant financial settlement.
This “new boss” effect is not an isolated phenomenon nor is it restricted to disability accommodations. A similar pattern emerged in a case with Marriott, which settled with the EEOC after a new manager revoked a Seventh-Day Adventist employee’s long-standing accommodation to have Saturdays off for her Sabbath. In another instance, a lawsuit was filed against a hotel after a new supervisor rescinded a worker’s religious accommodation for Sundays off, which had been honored for years. These examples reveal a troubling trend where management turnover becomes a direct threat to legally protected workplace arrangements.
An Ongoing Obligation Not a One Time Fix
Legal experts and regulatory bodies emphasize that an employer’s duty to accommodate is not a single event but an ongoing obligation. According to guidance from the Job Accommodation Network, a leading resource on workplace accommodations, the responsibility does not end once an initial accommodation is implemented. Circumstances may change, but the employer’s duty to engage with the employee persists throughout their tenure.
The consent decree in the Walmart case reinforces this principle, imposing corrective measures that extend far beyond a monetary payout. The company is now required to implement mandatory ADA compliance training for human resources and management personnel, post notices informing employees of their legal rights, and submit regular compliance reports to the EEOC. These actions signal that the law demands a systemic commitment to accommodation, not just a reactive fix to individual complaints.
The Interactive Process a Mandated Dialogue
At the heart of an employer’s legal duty is the “interactive process,” a mandated, collaborative effort between the employer and employee to identify an effective accommodation. This is a dialogue, not a monologue. An existing accommodation cannot be revoked unilaterally, even if an employer believes business needs have shifted. Instead, the law requires the employer to re-engage in the interactive process with the employee.
If a current accommodation becomes unworkable due to legitimate changes in the business, the employer’s responsibility is to explore and determine a viable alternative. The objective is not to simply remove the support but to find a different reasonable solution that allows the employee to continue performing their essential job functions. This process protects both the employee’s rights and the employer’s operational needs, ensuring that decisions are made collaboratively rather than by decree.
The legal landscape surrounding workplace accommodations made clear that an employer’s responsibilities were continuous. High-profile settlements, such as the one involving Walmart, demonstrated that revoking an established accommodation without due process carried significant financial and organizational risks. The cases underscored the critical importance of the interactive process and reinforced that management changes did not nullify an organization’s pre-existing legal duties. Ultimately, these events served as a powerful reminder that stability and adherence to federal law required institutional knowledge and consistent policy application, protecting employees from the disruptive effects of leadership transitions.
