Opinion ID: 180580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Interactive Accommodation Process

Text: To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee]. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2010). This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. Id. Both parties must participate in this process and do so in good faith. Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871. Parties should not obstruct the process, or refuse to participate. Id. An employee has the burden of proposing an initial accommodation, and the employer has the burden of showing how the accommodation would cause an undue hardship, but the employer is not required to propose a counter accommodation in order to participate in the interactive process in good faith. See, e.g., Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099, 1108, 1110 (6th Cir.2008) (discussing the interactive process but not requiring that the employer make a counter proposal after rejecting the employee's proposed accommodations). Of course, taking the extra step of proposing counter accommodations may be additional evidence of good faith. See Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 872 (noting that the employer's visits to the manufacturing line to try to identify appropriate jobs for the employee was evidence of participating in the interactive process in good faith). If an employer takes that step and offers a reasonable counter accommodation, the employee cannot demand a different accommodation. Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 457 (6th Cir.2004). An employer has sufficiently acted in good faith when it readily meets with the employee, discusses any reasonable accommodations, and suggests other possible positions for the plaintiff. See Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 527 F.3d 539, 557 (6th Cir.2008). Jakubowski contends that Christ Hospital did not act in good faith because it did not offer him a remediation program similar to the one offered to the previous, unnamed resident who exhibited similar deficiencies. Importantly, Jakubowski did not request a remediation program at the accommodation meeting with Christ Hospital. Only as part of this litigation did he contend that Christ Hospital should have volunteered this option. Christ Hospital, through Diller, met with Jakubowski to discuss his proposed accommodations, and told him that the hospital lacked sufficient resources to comply. Diller also offered to help him find a pathology residency because it would involve less patient contact, thus, accommodating what Diller saw as one of Jakubowski's weaknesses. Because Christ Hospital met with Jakubowski, considered his proposed accommodations, informed him why they were unreasonable, offered assistance in finding a new pathology residency, and never hindered the process along the way, we agree that there is no dispute that Christ Hospital participated in the interactive accommodation process in good faith.