Disability Accommodation Requests: MN Employer Duties

What did Minnesota’s 2026 accommodation amendment change for employers?

Since August 1, 2026, an employer’s failure to engage in the accommodation process may itself violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Chapter 99 of the 2026 session laws added paragraph (c) to Minn. Stat. § 363A.02, subd. 1, the act’s public-policy section: “Failure to engage in the process to determine if a reasonable accommodation exists that would allow people with disabilities as defined in section 363A.03, subdivision 12, to participate fully in employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, and education may be an unfair discriminatory practice under this chapter” (2026 Minn. Laws ch. 99, § 1). Under Minn. Stat. § 645.02, an act takes effect “on August 1 next following its final enactment” unless the act specifies a different date. Chapter 99 specifies none, and the governor signed it on May 18, 2026, so it took effect August 1, 2026.

Two amendments separate today’s statute from a 2019 decision. In McBee v. Team Industries, Inc., 925 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2019), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the MHRA, as it then read, “does not mandate that employers engage employees in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations can be made.” In 2021, the legislature added the sentence that now directs the employer to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation” (2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 11, art. 3, § 13). The 2026 paragraph then made the failure to engage a possible violation.

The new text has limits. It says a failure “may be” a violation without saying when, and it does not define the process; for a workplace request, the statute’s description of the process is in subdivision 6 of section 363A.08. The label matters because an unfair discriminatory practice carries the MHRA’s remedies. In a lawsuit, a court that finds one “shall order” compensatory damages, “including mental anguish or suffering, in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained,” may add punitive damages, and in its discretion may award the prevailing party a reasonable attorney fee (Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, subds. 7 and 8).

When does an employee’s request trigger the accommodation process?

The accommodation process starts when an employee lets the employer know, in any words, that a medical condition is causing a problem at work and a change is needed. Minnesota defines a reasonable accommodation as “steps which must be taken to accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability,” and requires one unless the employer can show undue hardship (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6). The ADA likewise treats as discrimination “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations” of a qualified applicant or employee, unless the employer can show the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) explains the trigger in enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodation that, by its own terms, does “not have the force and effect of law.” The employee “must let the employer know that s/he needs an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition,” and “may use ‘plain English’ and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase ‘reasonable accommodation.’” Requests “do not need to be in writing,” and the employer “cannot ignore the initial request.”

The knowledge requirement protects employers too. In my practice defending employers, I have answered a charge that alleged a failure to accommodate a condition the employee never mentioned while employed, and my response rested on the company’s record of what the employee had and had not told it. A drop in performance can be the first sign of an unstated limitation, which is one reason to ask what is going on before managing a struggling employee through discipline.

Requests tied to pregnancy or childbirth also come under Minn. Stat. § 181.939, subd. 2, which reaches employers with one or more employees. It requires reasonable accommodations for health conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth unless the employer demonstrates undue hardship, and it does not let an employer require a provider’s advice for, or claim undue hardship over, “more frequent or longer restroom, food, and water breaks,” “seating,” or “limits on lifting over 20 pounds.” It also provides that “[t]he employee and employer shall engage in an interactive process with respect to an employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation,” and that “[a]n employer shall not require an employee to take a leave or accept an accommodation.” For employers with 15 or more employees, the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act adds a parallel duty, including a bar on requiring a qualified employee “to take leave, whether paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation can be provided” (42 U.S.C. § 2000gg(2)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-1).

What counts as a disability under Minnesota and federal law?

Minnesota and federal law both cover mental as well as physical conditions, including conditions that come and go. Under Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 12, a disabled person “has a physical, sensory, or mental impairment which materially limits one or more major life activities,” has a record of such an impairment, is regarded as having one, or “has an impairment that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active.”

The ADA covers an impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities,” and it directs that its definition “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter” (42 U.S.C. § 12102). Its list of major life activities includes “concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working,” and an impairment “that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” The two statutes use different words, “materially” and “substantially,” and a condition such as anxiety can meet either definition depending on how it affects the employee.

The EEOC’s interpretive guidance on its ADA regulations says the threshold question of coverage “should not demand extensive analysis” (29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.), which points an employer’s effort toward the limitation and the job rather than the diagnosis. The definitions, and the discrimination claims built on them, are covered in more depth in disability discrimination under Minnesota law.

How do you run and document the interactive process?

The interactive process is a documented conversation about two things: the employee’s limitations and the reasonable accommodations that could overcome them. Minnesota’s statute says the employer “shall initiate an informal, interactive process” and that the process “should identify the limitations resulting from the disability and any potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6). The federal regulation says that, to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, “it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process” (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). In Minnesota, starting the process is the employer’s job.

The EEOC’s interpretive guidance breaks the work into four steps, which track the two things Minnesota’s statute says the process should identify (29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.):

1. “Analyze the particular job involved and determine its purpose and essential functions.”
2. Consult with the employee “to ascertain the precise job-related limitations imposed by the individual’s disability and how those limitations could be overcome with a reasonable accommodation.”
3. With the employee, “identify potential accommodations and assess the effectiveness each would have.”
4. “Consider the preference of the individual to be accommodated and select and implement the accommodation that is most appropriate for both the employee and the employer.”

Speed matters. The EEOC’s guidance says an employer “should respond expeditiously to a request for reasonable accommodation” and warns that “[u]nnecessary delays can result in a violation of the ADA.” Documentation does double duty in Minnesota, because one of the statute’s undue-hardship factors is “documented good faith efforts” to look for “less restrictive or less expensive alternatives, including consultation with the disabled person” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6). A useful file records the date and words of the request, the limitations identified, each option discussed and why it was accepted or rejected, the medical information requested and received (kept separately), and the decision with its reasons.

The Minnesota Supreme Court warned employers about silence even before these amendments: in McBee, it said that “in many cases, an employer may avoid communicating with an employee seeking accommodation at its own peril.” In my practice defending employers, the most useful evidence I have put in front of an agency was concrete: photographs and measurements of the actual workstation and a step-by-step account of how the work is done.

What medical information can an employer request?

An employer may ask for the medical information it needs to confirm a disability and the need for an accommodation, and in Minnesota the safe way to get more is with the employee’s consent. Minn. Stat. § 363A.20, subd. 8 says it is “not an unfair employment practice” for an employer, “with the consent of the employee,” to obtain additional medical information “for purposes of assessing the need to reasonably accommodate an employee.” Under the ADA, an employer may make a disability-related inquiry of a current employee only if the inquiry is “job-related and consistent with business necessity” (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A)).

The EEOC’s guidance says that when “the disability and/or the need for accommodation is not obvious,” the employer “may ask the individual for reasonable documentation about his/her disability and functional limitations,” limited to what “is needed to establish that a person has an ADA disability, and that the disability necessitates a reasonable accommodation.” It adds that “in most situations an employer cannot request a person’s complete medical records.”

What you receive belongs in a separate, confidential medical file. Minnesota requires that the information be “collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files” and treated as a confidential medical record, with an exception that lets supervisors and managers be informed about “necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.20, subd. 8). The EEOC’s regulation sets the same rule for medical information about employees (29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c)(1)).

Minnesota adds a notice duty: “If any health care records or medical information adversely affects any hiring, firing, or promotional decision concerning an applicant or employee, the employer must notify the affected party of that information within ten days of the final decision” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.20, subd. 8(c)). Medical exams before an employee starts work follow separate rules, covered in medical exams after a conditional job offer.

How do you choose among effective accommodations?

Under the EEOC’s interpretive guidance, when more than one accommodation would work, the employer chooses, after giving real weight to what the employee wants. The guidance says the employee’s preference “should be given primary consideration,” but the employer “has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations, and may choose the less expensive accommodation or the accommodation that is easier for it to provide” (29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.). The accommodation need not be the most elaborate option available, so long as it is “sufficient to meet the job-related needs of the individual being accommodated.”

Minnesota’s statute lists examples without saying who chooses among them: “job restructuring, modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, and the provision of aides on a temporary or periodic basis” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6). The ADA’s list adds items such as “part-time or modified work schedules” and “appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)).

An employee can turn down an offered accommodation, with a consequence the EEOC’s regulation spells out. An employee who rejects a reasonable accommodation “that is necessary to enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired, and cannot, as a result of that rejection, perform the essential functions of the position,” “will not be considered qualified” (29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d)). I suggest putting the offer, the reasons for choosing it, and the employee’s response in writing.

What makes an accommodation an undue hardship?

An employer may refuse a reasonable accommodation as an undue hardship only if it can prove the hardship, and the test weighs the accommodation against the size and resources of the business. Minnesota’s statute makes it an unfair employment practice for an employer with 15 or more employees not to provide a reasonable accommodation “unless the employer, agency, or organization can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the business, agency, or organization” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6). The factors to be considered include:

• “the overall size of the business or organization with respect to number of employees or members and the number and type of facilities”;
• the type of operation, including the composition of the workforce and “the number of employees at the location where the employment would occur”;
• “the nature and cost of the needed accommodation”;
• “the reasonable ability to finance the accommodation at each site of business”; and
• “documented good faith efforts” to look for “less restrictive or less expensive alternatives, including consultation with the disabled person or with knowledgeable disabled persons or organizations.”

The ADA defines undue hardship as “an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the factors” the statute lists, beginning with “the nature and cost of the accommodation needed” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)). Proving that one accommodation is an undue hardship does not end the duty. The EEOC’s interpretive guidance says that “[i]f there is another accommodation that will not create an undue hardship, the employer would be required to provide the alternative accommodation” (29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app.).

For job applicants, Minnesota adds that a prospective employer “need not pay for an accommodation for a job applicant if it is available from an alternative source without cost to the employer or applicant.” Because documented good-faith efforts count as a Minnesota factor, I suggest recording the alternatives you considered at the time you consider them.

How does leave work as a reasonable accommodation?

Under the EEOC’s reading of the ADA, time off can be a reasonable accommodation, including unpaid leave beyond what a company’s own policy provides. The EEOC’s enforcement guidance says that “[p]ermitting the use of accrued paid leave, or unpaid leave, is a form of reasonable accommodation when necessitated by an employee’s disability,” and its 2016 leave guidance says an employer “must consider providing unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation if the employee requires it, and so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer.” Minnesota’s statute names “modified work schedules” among its examples and says its list “is not limited to” the items named (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6).

A maximum-leave policy does not settle the question. The 2016 guidance says employers “may have to grant leave beyond this amount as a reasonable accommodation to employees who require it because of a disability, unless the employer can show that doing so will cause an undue hardship.” The same guidance says a policy requiring an employee to have “no medical restrictions” before returning violates the ADA when the employee can do the job with or without a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship.

Other leave laws run alongside, each on its own terms. For employers with “50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) provides job-protected leave to eligible employees, who on return are entitled, except as the statute provides, to the same or an equivalent position (29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i); 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1)). The EEOC’s position is that “compliance with the FMLA does not necessarily meet an employer’s obligation under the ADA.”

Minnesota’s earned sick and safe time law, which reaches employers with one or more employees, lets an employee use accrued time for the employee’s own “mental or physical illness, injury, or other health condition,” and it sets its own documentation rules (Minn. Stat. § 181.9445, subd. 6; Minn. Stat. § 181.9447, subds. 1 and 3). Minnesota’s paid leave law entitles an employee returning from leave under it to “the same position the employee held when leave commenced or to an equivalent position,” a right that applies “[n]inety calendar days from the date of hire,” and says that nothing in that section “shall be deemed to affect the Americans with Disabilities Act” (Minn. Stat. § 268B.09, subd. 6). Your obligations under the paid leave law and your accommodation duty are separate questions, and planning for an employee returning from a long leave means answering both.

What happens when no reasonable accommodation will work?

When nothing in the current job will work, reassignment comes next, and in Minnesota the burden of proof sits with the company if it concludes the person cannot do the work. Both statutes list “reassignment to a vacant position” as an accommodation (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6; 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)), and the EEOC’s guidance calls it “the reasonable accommodation of last resort,” to consider once accommodations in the current position are ruled out.

If the employer concludes the employee is not qualified, Minnesota places the burden on the employer: “the burden is on the respondent to prove that it was reasonable to conclude the disabled person, with reasonable accommodation, could not have met the requirements of the job” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 36). A written job description helps, because under the ADA, if an employer “has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).

Practice can undercut the paper. In McBee, the employee testified that the company had accommodated a 20-pound lifting restriction before; reviewing summary judgment, the Minnesota Supreme Court said that fact “calls into question” the employer’s reliance on a job description listing 50-pound lifting as essential. In my practice defending employers, I have had to explain after the fact why an accommodation the company granted for a while could not continue. When an accommodation is temporary, I suggest saying so in writing when you grant it, with the reason and a date to revisit it. If the process ends without an accommodation, I suggest closing the file with a written summary of the limitations identified, each option considered, why each failed, and what the employee said.

Minnesota’s accommodation duty now has two parts: finding an accommodation that works, and engaging in the process that looks for one. Since August 1, 2026, a failure to engage “may be an unfair discriminatory practice” under the MHRA, so the process and its record are part of what an employer can be judged on. The habits that protect a company are simple: treat a work problem tied to a medical condition as a request, start the conversation promptly, ask only for the medical information you need and keep it separate, write down the options and your reasons, and set a date to revisit temporary arrangements. Accommodation questions are part of my employment law work for Minnesota employers. If you would like a second set of eyes on a pending request, email me at [email protected] to start an intake and conflict check before sending medical records or other confidential documents.