What should happen when an executive assistant asks for a workplace change related to a medical condition?

Abstract

EEOC guidance says a person does not need to use the words ADA or reasonable accommodation to start the process. A plain-language request for a workplace change because of a medical condition can be enough [1][4]. Executive offices need a trained route that recognizes the request, protects confidentiality, and transfers the decision to the employer's qualified owner. The executive and assistant can explain job functions and workflow, but they should not improvise a medical or legal determination.

Methodology

The review compares ten EEOC, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, OPM, and current regulatory sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Federal-sector examples are used only as process references where stated. Coverage, disability status, effectiveness, undue hardship, and state-law duties are fact-specific questions for qualified owners.

Recognize the request without demanding a script

Managers need to recognize a request even when it arrives in ordinary language [1][2][4]. A comment that a medical condition makes a schedule, tool, travel pattern, or workspace difficult may require routing. The receiver should acknowledge it and contact the designated accommodation owner promptly.

Do not ask the person to explain private details to an executive, team channel, or shared inbox. Record the request date, the work change described, the route used, and the receiving owner. Medical information belongs in the employer's separate confidential process [2][3].

Describe essential functions with evidence

The process needs an accurate account of what the job requires. Separate essential outcomes from habits attached to one executive. For example, reliable schedule coverage may be essential while one specific desk location or communication format may not be.

Use the job description, actual recurring duties, consequence of reassignment, and available coverage to inform the qualified review [1][7]. Do not rewrite the role after a request to make every current practice appear essential.

The interactive process is a dialogue

EEOC guidance describes an informal interactive process for identifying relevant limits and possible accommodations [1][5]. The employee's requested option deserves consideration, but the process may identify another effective option. Cost, effectiveness, disruption, and available resources require a case-specific review.

Avoid forcing a standard list of accommodations onto every request. The Job Accommodation Network provides technical assistance and examples [9], but a resource library does not decide what is effective or required for one person.

Share implementation details, not diagnosis

A supervisor may need to know a schedule change, equipment arrangement, communication method, or work restriction. Coworkers generally do not need the medical reason. EEOC guidance requires medical information obtained in this process to remain confidential [1][2][3].

The implementation record should name the adjustment, start date, responsible owner, funding or technology dependency, and check-in date. Store medical documents separately from the operating instructions that let the team carry out the change.

Review effectiveness without surveillance

A check-in asks whether the adjustment is working and whether the job or need has changed. It should not become monitoring of symptoms, private appointments, or coworker speculation. Delays, repeated access failures, or a change in essential functions are valid process signals.

OPM procedures show how a defined request route and program ownership can work in a large organization [10]. Private employers must use their own applicable policy and qualified advice. The process record should preserve timely routing and decisions while keeping the medical file outside ordinary executive-office records.

Key findings

  • A request can begin without legal terms or a special form [1][4].
  • Managers need a prompt route to the employer's qualified accommodation owner [2].
  • Essential functions should be described from actual work, not convenience.
  • Implementation details can be shared without disclosing medical information [1][3].
  • Review should test effectiveness without tracking private health details.

Sources

  1. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  2. Manager Responsibilities: Reasonable Accommodation Tips, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  3. Disability Discrimination and Employment Decisions, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  4. Practical Advice for Drafting and Implementing Reasonable Accommodation Procedures, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  5. Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  6. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, U.S. Department of Justice
  7. 29 CFR Part 1630: Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the ADA, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
  8. The ADA: Your Employment Rights as an Individual With a Disability, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  9. Accommodations, U.S. Department of Labor
  10. Reasonable Accommodation, U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Return to the Research Content library