The interactive process and New York City's cooperative dialogue

After an employee asks for an accommodation, the employer is expected to talk with the employee about what is needed and what is possible. The EEOC's federal regulation and New York's Court of Appeals call this the "interactive process"; the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) calls it the "cooperative dialogue."⁠^[6][2][7] The consequences of skipping it differ by layer. The NYCHRL makes the failure to engage an unlawful discriminatory practice in its own right.⁠^[4] Under the federal ADA in the Second Circuit, and under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), a missing process does not by itself decide the case for the employee.⁠^[1][3]

The three rules at a glance

	Federal (ADA)	New York State (NYSHRL)	New York City (NYCHRL)
Where the rule comes from	The EEOC's regulation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).⁠[6]	The Division of Human Rights' regulation and Court of Appeals case law.⁠[8][2]	The text of the NYCHRL, as amended by Local Law 59 of 2018.⁠[7][4][9]
What is expected	An informal, interactive process that should identify the precise limitations and the potential reasonable accommodations.⁠[6]	A good-faith interactive process that assesses the needs of the individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested.⁠[2]	A good-faith written or oral dialogue about the person's needs, potential accommodations including alternatives, and the difficulties they may pose for the employer.⁠[7]
If the employer skips it	In the Second Circuit, not a basis for a claim in the absence of evidence that accommodation was possible.⁠[1]	The employer generally cannot obtain summary judgment, but the employee cannot win solely on that failure.⁠[2][3]	An unlawful discriminatory practice in itself.⁠[4]
Written decision	This page does not state a federal written-decision rule.	This page does not state a State written-decision rule.	A written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.⁠[5]

Federal law: the interactive process under the ADA

The phrase comes from the EEOC's ADA regulation, which says that to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation "it may be necessary" for the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual.⁠^[6] The regulation describes the goal: identifying the precise limitations that result from the disability and the potential accommodations that could overcome them.⁠^[6]

In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, an ADA plaintiff bears the burdens of production and persuasion on the existence of some accommodation that would allow performance of the essential functions of the job.⁠^[10] In the same decision, the Second Circuit agreed with other federal appeals courts that a failure to engage in an interactive process does not form the basis of an ADA claim in the absence of evidence that accommodation was possible.⁠^[1]

The process also bears on damages under the ADA. In an ADA accommodation case, compensatory and punitive damages may not be awarded where the employer demonstrates good-faith efforts, in consultation with the person who said an accommodation was needed, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation.⁠^[11] By its terms the provision addresses damages awarded under that section.⁠^[11]

New York State law: a process the employer needs in order to win early

For NYSHRL claims, the Division of Human Rights' regulation assigns duties to both sides. The employer has a duty to move forward to consider accommodation once the need is known or requested and has to clearly request any documentation it needs; the employee has to make the disability and need known and cooperate in the process.⁠^[8]

In 2009 the Appellate Division, First Department, held that the purpose of the NYSHRL cannot be achieved without requiring employers to consider requested accommodations by engaging in an individualized, interactive process.⁠^[12] The Court of Appeals later rejected any reading of that decision under which a missing process automatically gives the employee judgment.⁠^[3]

That later decision came in 2014, when the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, set the rule for NYSHRL claims. To prevail on a summary judgment motion on a NYSHRL claim, the employer must show that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested.⁠^[2] Summary judgment is a ruling that decides a claim without a trial. See summary judgment in employment cases.

The same decision set a limit: the employer's decision to engage in or forgo the process is one factor in deciding whether a reasonable accommodation was available.⁠^[3] Under the NYSHRL, the employee cannot obtain a favorable jury verdict or summary judgment solely because the employer failed to engage in an interactive process.⁠^[3] At a trial on a NYSHRL claim, the employee still has to prove that a reasonable accommodation existed.⁠^[13]

New York City law: the cooperative dialogue

The 2014 Court of Appeals decision also addressed the NYCHRL, and the City Council then changed the result. In 2020 the First Department quoted the Council committee report as saying that the cooperative dialogue bill legislatively modified the Court of Appeals' holding that refusal to engage in a good-faith interactive process is not independently actionable.⁠^[14] The NYCHRL now contains four connected rules.

1. A defined process. "Cooperative dialogue" means the process by which the employer and a person entitled, or who may be entitled, to an accommodation engage in good faith in a written or oral dialogue about the person's needs, potential accommodations including alternatives to the one requested, and the difficulties those accommodations may pose.⁠^[7]
2. A stand-alone duty. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, or its employee or agent, to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation or who the employer has notice may require one.⁠^[4]
3. A written result. On reaching a final determination, the employer shall provide the person with a written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.⁠^[5]
4. No denial without dialogue. A determination that no reasonable accommodation would enable the person to satisfy the essential requisites of the job may only be made after the parties have engaged, or the employer has attempted to engage, in a cooperative dialogue.⁠^[5]

The NYCHRL adds that these rights are supplemental to and independent of the accommodation duty itself, and that an employer's compliance with the dialogue rule is not a defense to a claim of not providing a reasonable accommodation.⁠^[5]

The NYCHRL's dialogue duty is not limited to disability. It also covers accommodation requests related to religion, to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition, and to a person's status as a victim of domestic violence, sex offenses or stalking.⁠^[4]

What the NYC Commission on Human Rights says about the dialogue

The NYC Commission on Human Rights, which enforces the NYCHRL, issued a new edition of its disability guidance in December 2025.⁠^[15] It calls refusing or failing to engage in the dialogue a standalone violation of the NYCHRL.⁠^[16] Its main points:

• Who starts it. An employer that knows an employee's performance has diminished, and has a reasonable basis to believe the issue is related to a disability, must initiate a cooperative dialogue, without assuming a disability.⁠^[17]
• When it ends. The dialogue is ongoing until a reasonable accommodation is provided, or the employer reasonably concludes that no accommodation is available without undue hardship, that a suitable accommodation was offered and refused with no reasonable alternative identified, or that no accommodation would let the person perform the essential requisites of the job.⁠^[18]
• Delay. "An indeterminate delay may have the same effect as an outright denial."⁠^[18]
• Good faith. The Commission says it will consider whether the employer has a policy informing employees how to request accommodations, whether it responded in a timely manner in light of the urgency and reasonableness of the request, and whether it sought to obstruct or delay the dialogue or to intimidate or deter the person.⁠^[19] It also says the person cannot simply reject an accommodation that would be sufficient to meet their needs because it is not the preferred one.⁠^[19]
• Written determination. The Commission treats failure to provide the written final determination as a distinct violation of the NYCHRL.⁠^[20]
• Medical documentation. If documentation seems insufficient, the employer should ask for more rather than reject the request.⁠^[21]

What does a good-faith process look like in practice?

The employee explains the limitation and the need. The employer asks for any information it needs, and the State regulation puts the duty to ask clearly on the employer.⁠^[8] The two sides then look at options, which under the NYCHRL definition include alternatives to the accommodation first requested.⁠^[7] The employer decides, and in New York City puts the decision in writing.⁠^[5]

For employees, the practical points are to answer questions promptly, to say why a proposed alternative would or would not work, and to keep copies of every exchange. For employers, they are to respond quickly, to consider the individual job instead of a blanket rule, and to record what was considered. The steps for making the request itself are in how to request an accommodation.

What do people commonly get wrong?

• "Skipping the interactive process is automatically a violation everywhere." That describes the NYCHRL, not the ADA as applied in the Second Circuit or the NYSHRL.⁠^[4][1][3]
• "If the employer held meetings, it is in the clear." Under the NYCHRL, holding a dialogue is not a defense to a failure-to-accommodate claim.⁠^[5]
• "The process is only the employer's job." The State regulation requires the employee to cooperate in the process.⁠^[8]
• "A verbal no is enough in New York City." The NYCHRL calls for a written final determination.⁠^[5]

Related pages: what an employer has to provide, undue hardship, medical leave as an accommodation, pregnancy accommodations, the City Human Rights Law explained and the disability discrimination overview.