Opinion ID: 792800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Engage in Interactive Process Claim7

Text: 29 Tobin's final claim is that Liberty Mutual failed to engage in an interactive process with him to identify other appropriate accommodations. The ADA's regulations state that it may be necessary for the covered entity [the employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual [the employee] with a disability in need of the accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( o )(3) (2005). 8 Thus, once the employer becomes aware of the disability of an employee, he is expected to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the employee to find the best means of accommodating that disability. The district court determined that Tobin did not produce sufficient evidence to support his claim that Liberty Mutual failed to engage in an interactive process with him. 30 In Calero-Cerezo v. Dep't of Justice, we noted that [t]he scope of the employer's obligation in this [interactive] process is not crystal clear. 355 F.3d 6, 23-24 (1st Cir.2004). Although an employee's request for reasonable accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer, Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437, 444 (1st Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) — something especially true in cases such as this one, involving an employee suffering from mental illness, see id. — this does not mean that the employer has the unreasonable burden of raising and discussing every conceivable accommodation with the disabled employee. As the ADA regulations themselves state, the interactive process is to be informal and a means of uncovering  potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome the employee's disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( o )(3) (2005) (emphasis added). 31 The facts of this case illustrate well the need to emphasize the employer's limited and carefully-defined role. This is not an instance where the employer Liberty Mutual simply rejected any request for accommodation without further discussion. See García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 648 n. 13 (1st Cir.2000); see also Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96 F.3d 506, 515 (1st Cir.1996) (There may well be situations in which the employer's failure to engage in an informal interactive process would constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation that amounts to a violation of the ADA.). Here, there was not only a great deal of discussion about Tobin's difficulties, but significant action on the part of company officials. Liberty Mutual provided Tobin with multiple accommodations. The district court noted that [t]he record is filled with evidence of accommodations Liberty Mutual made for Tobin, including the provision of a nurse, computer trainings, and numerous meetings to help Tobin create the skills and plans to increase his sales effectiveness. Tobin, 2004 WL 1922133 at . It is hard to imagine that all these measures were simply inflicted upon Tobin without any input on his part. We believe that Liberty Mutual followed the ADA regulations and that the steps taken by the company were sufficient to satisfy its obligation to engage in an interactive process. We therefore affirm the district court's holding on Tobin's interactive process claim.