Home  ı  Article's Table of Contents

Introduction to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Proving a "reasonable accommodation" claim versus proving a "because of disability" claim

A "because of disability" claim involves an assertion that an employer took some adverse employment action against the employee (or the job applicant) because of the person's disability.  A "reasonable accommodation" claim involves an assertion that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed the employee (or job applicant) to perform the essential functions of the job in question.

 The main difference between these two types of claims is motive. In a "because of disability" claim, the plaintiff prevails by proving that the employer took the adverse employment action for the improper motive of intentional discrimination.  But in a "reasonable accommodation" claim, the issue is not the employer's motive, but simply whether a reasonable accommodation could have been provided that would have allowed the employee (or job applicant) to perform the essential functions of the job in question.

Because of disability claims

"Because of disability" claims involve either direct evidence of the employer's improper motive ("I am not going to hire you because you are blind"); or indirect evidence in which the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis is used.

This involves a three-step analysis in which the employee must first make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination by showing the following:

1. that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA;
2. that she is a "qualified individual with a disability" (i.e. able to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation); and
3. that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.

In the second step of the analysis, the employer is required to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.

In the third step of the analysis, the employee must present sufficient evidence that would allow a jury to believe that the reason offered by the employer is not the true reason, and that the true reason was because of the employee's disability.

See, Butler v. City of Prairie Village, Kan., 172 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 1999).

Article's Table of Contents   ı   Previous Page   ı   Next Page