When a Missouri employee with a disability needs a change at work, the reasonable accommodation rules of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) usually decide the outcome. The quick answer: if the worker is a qualified individual with a disability, the employer generally must provide a reasonable accommodation that lets them do the job — unless doing so would impose an undue hardship — and must engage in a good-faith interactive process to find one. Most disputes turn on whether the employer engaged at all, whether the requested change is reasonable, and what the job's essential functions really are.
These accommodation duties come from federal law (the ADA, Title I), but Missouri's own state statute, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), runs in parallel and is not identical. This guide covers who is protected, what the duty requires, how the interactive process works, where disputes break down, and how a Missouri employee pursues a claim.
Who is a "qualified individual with a disability"?
The ADA's employment protections (Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) cover a qualified individual with a disability — a person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job they hold or want. This is a federal concept, and it has two parts.
First, the person must have a disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of one, or being regarded as having one. Congress directed that "disability" be read broadly, so a condition controlled by medication or in remission can still qualify.
Second, the person must be qualified — able to do the job's essential functions with or without accommodation. Essential functions are the core duties of the position, as opposed to marginal tasks. An employer is not required to eliminate an essential function, which is why what counts as "essential" is so often disputed (more below).
Title I applies to federal employers with 15 or more employees. A smaller Missouri employer may still be covered by the MHRA, the state law, which reaches employers with six or more — a key federal-versus-state gap.
The duty to provide a reasonable accommodation
A reasonable accommodation is a change to the job, the workplace, or the usual way things are done that enables a qualified employee to perform the job or enjoy equal terms of employment. Under the federal ADA, common examples include:
- A modified or part-time schedule, or adjusted start and stop times.
- Leave beyond a standard policy when it is likely to let the employee return to work.
- Assistive equipment , software, or an accessible workstation.
- Reassignment to a vacant position the employee is qualified to fill, when accommodation in the current role is not possible.
The employer's obligation is triggered by a known disability and a request — but there is no magic-words requirement. An employee need not cite "the ADA" or use the term "accommodation"; a plain request for a change tied to a medical condition can be enough to start the employer's duty.
Undue hardship
The duty has a limit. An employer need not provide an accommodation that would cause an undue hardship — significant difficulty or expense judged against the employer's size, resources, and operations. What is undue for a small shop may be routine for a large company. Undue hardship is the employer's burden to prove, and a bare claim that an accommodation is "too expensive" or "inconvenient," without analysis, rarely satisfies it.
Importantly, the employer is not required to remove an essential function, lower a legitimate production or performance standard, create a new job, or grant the employee's preferred accommodation when a different one is also effective. The duty is to provide an effective accommodation, not the employee's first choice.
The interactive process
When an employee requests an accommodation — or when the need is obvious — the ADA contemplates an interactive process: a good-faith, back-and-forth dialogue between employer and employee to identify the limitation and an effective accommodation. This federal expectation is at the heart of most accommodation disputes.
A sound process generally means the employer responds promptly, discusses options rather than issuing a flat denial, requests supporting medical documentation only when the need is not obvious (and keeps it confidential), and documents the request, the options weighed, and the outcome. Both sides must participate; an employee who refuses to provide reasonable documentation or walks away from the dialogue may undercut their own claim.
Common flashpoints in accommodation disputes
Failure to engage in the interactive process
The single most common breakdown is an employer that never engages — ignoring a request, treating it as a complaint to be denied, or imposing a decision without dialogue. Failing to engage in good faith is, by itself, a frequent basis for liability, particularly where a reasonable accommodation likely existed.
Denial of leave as an accommodation
Leave is one of the most litigated accommodations. A finite period of leave — including leave after FMLA is exhausted — can be a reasonable accommodation if it is likely to let the employee return and perform the job. Disputes arise when an employer applies a rigid maximum-leave or "no-fault" attendance policy and terminates automatically, without considering more leave as an accommodation. By contrast, indefinite leave with no expected return date generally is not required.
"Essential functions" disputes
Because an employer need not remove an essential function, parties often fight over what the essential functions are. A written job description prepared before posting the job is evidence — but not the last word; courts also look at how the job is actually performed, the time spent on each duty, and the consequences of not performing it. Whether attendance, lifting, travel, or working a fixed shift is truly "essential" is fact-specific and frequently contested.
How a dispute is pursued, and the remedies
ADA employment claims run through an administrative process first. Before filing an ADA lawsuit, an employee must file a charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the applicable deadline. The EEOC investigates, may attempt conciliation, and ultimately issues a right-to-sue notice; only then can the employee file an ADA suit. Skipping the charge generally bars the suit.
Federal remedies under Title I can include back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory and sometimes punitive damages (subject to federal caps tied to employer size), injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Because the deadlines are short and unforgiving, timing matters from the first day a dispute surfaces.
The parallel Missouri Human Rights Act protections
The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), codified at RSMo Chapter 213, is Missouri's state counterpart to the ADA. It independently makes disability a protected category and, through RSMo § 213.055, prohibits unlawful employment practices based on disability — including, by regulation and practice, a duty to reasonably accommodate. The MHRA is enforced by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR), not the EEOC.
The MHRA is not identical to the ADA. It reaches smaller employers (6 or more versus the ADA's 15), runs on its own charge-and-deadline track through the MCHR, and requires a right-to-sue letter from the Commission before a state-court suit. Missouri amended the MHRA in recent years to adjust the plaintiff's legal standard and to cap certain damages, so the state standards and remedies do not line up exactly with the federal ADA. Charges are often dual-filed, but the federal and state deadlines run separately — missing either can bar that claim. The practical upshot: treat the ADA as the federal floor and check the MHRA separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is reasonable accommodation a federal or a Missouri requirement?
Both, on separate tracks. The duty to provide a reasonable accommodation is a federal ADA concept (Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), enforced by the EEOC. Missouri's MHRA (RSMo Chapter 213), enforced by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, independently protects employees with disabilities under a standard that is similar but not identical to the ADA.
Does my employer have to give me the exact accommodation I ask for?
No. The employer must provide an effective accommodation, but it may choose among effective options and need not grant your preferred one. It also need not remove an essential function of the job, lower a legitimate performance standard, or provide something that causes an undue hardship.
Can leave be a reasonable accommodation?
Yes. A finite period of leave — including leave after FMLA runs out — can be a reasonable accommodation if it is likely to let you return and do the job. Indefinite leave with no expected return date generally is not required, and rigid automatic-termination policies that ignore leave as an accommodation are a common source of disputes.
What happens if my employer refuses to discuss an accommodation at all?
Refusing to engage in the interactive process in good faith is itself a frequent basis for liability under the ADA, especially where a reasonable accommodation likely existed. Document your request and the employer's response, because that record often decides the case.
Do I have to file with an agency before suing?
Yes. Under the ADA you must first file a charge with the EEOC and obtain a right-to-sue notice before filing suit. Under the MHRA you file with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and need a state right-to-sue letter. The deadlines are short and run separately, so act quickly.
How small a Missouri employer is still covered?
The ADA reaches employers with 15 or more employees; the MHRA reaches Missouri employers with 6 or more, so a worker at an employer too small for the federal ADA may still have a state-law accommodation claim.
Legal Disclaimer
This guide provides general legal information about the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Reasonable-accommodation obligations, the interactive process, essential-function determinations, available remedies, and filing deadlines are fact-specific and depend on your circumstances and on which laws apply. Consult a qualified Missouri attorney about your situation.