Key points
- The federal ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law each make it unlawful not to reasonably accommodate a worker's disability.[1][2][3]
- The statutes give examples, including job restructuring, modified work schedules, changes to equipment and, under the ADA, reassignment to a vacant position.[4][2]
- Under the City Human Rights Law, the employer has the burden of proving undue hardship; in the Second Circuit, an ADA plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a workable accommodation existed.[5][6]
- In March 2025 the Second Circuit held that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without it.[7]
- The New York State regulation says the employer has the right to select which reasonable accommodation is provided, so long as it is effective in meeting the need.[8]
A reasonable accommodation is a change to a job, a schedule, a policy or a workplace that lets a person with a disability do the work. Federal, New York State and New York City law each treat an employer's failure to provide one as discrimination: the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless the employer can demonstrate undue hardship, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) for the "known disabilities" of an employee or prospective employee, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) where the disability is known or should have been known.[1][2][3]
The three duties are worded differently, and the differences affect who has to prove what. This page covers the duty and its limits. Separate pages cover how to ask, the conversation that follows and undue hardship.
What does each law require?
| Federal (ADA) | New York State (NYSHRL) | New York City (NYCHRL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The duty | Discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability.[1] | It is an unlawful discriminatory practice to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations to the known disabilities of an employee or prospective employee.[2] | It is an unlawful discriminatory practice not to provide a reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to satisfy the essential requisites of a job.[3] |
| What the employer has to know | The limitations are "known"; the Second Circuit has also held that an employer has to accommodate a disability that is obvious.[1][9] | The disabilities are "known"; the State regulation says the employer has a duty to move forward once the need is known or requested.[2][10] | The disability "is known or should have been known" by the employer.[3] |
| How "reasonable" is defined | By statutory examples, limited by undue hardship, which means significant difficulty or expense.[4][11] | By statutory examples, provided the action does not impose an undue hardship.[2] | Such accommodation that can be made that does not cause undue hardship in the conduct of the employer's business.[5] |
| Who carries the burden | In the Second Circuit, the employee bears the burdens of production and persuasion on the existence of some accommodation that would allow performance of the essential functions.[6] | The Court of Appeals has said that at trial the employee has to prove that a reasonable accommodation existed.[12] | The employer has the burden of proving undue hardship, and it is the employer's affirmative defense that the person could not do the job even with accommodation.[5][12] |
The NYC Commission on Human Rights summarizes the City rule this way in its December 2025 guidance: the NYCHRL imposes no requirement on employees to prove that an accommodation is necessary or that it does not pose an undue hardship.[13] The federal ADA does not displace the State or City rule where either gives greater protection.[14]
What can you ask for?
The ADA and NYSHRL lists are examples, not closed lists.[4][2] The statutory, regulatory and agency examples include the following.
- Changes to the workplace or equipment. The ADA lists making facilities accessible and acquiring or modifying equipment or devices.[4] The NYSHRL lists an accessible worksite, acquisition or modification of equipment, and support services for persons with impaired hearing or vision.[2]
- Changes to the job. The ADA and the NYSHRL both list job restructuring.[4][2]
- Changes to the schedule. The ADA lists part-time or modified work schedules, and the State regulation adds adjustments to a work schedule for treatment or recovery.[4][15] See remote work, schedule changes and reassignment.
- Reassignment. The ADA lists reassignment to a vacant position, and the State regulation lists reassignment to an available position.[4][15] The NYC Commission says an employer has to prioritize accommodations that keep the employee in the current position and may then consider reassignment to a vacant position.[16]
- Changes to policies, tests and materials, and readers or interpreters. Both the ADA and the State regulation list these.[4][15]
- Working from home. EEOC guidance on the ADA says an employer has to modify its policy on where work is performed if needed as a reasonable accommodation, but only if that would be effective and would not cause undue hardship.[17] Under the NYCHRL, the NYC Commission on Human Rights says an employer cannot rely on a policy that bans remote work or treats it as an earned privilege, and has to look at the employee's specific tasks.[18]
- Leave. EEOC guidance treats accrued paid leave or unpaid leave as a form of reasonable accommodation under the ADA when a disability makes it necessary.[19] See medical leave as an accommodation.
- Service animals. Under the NYCHRL, the NYC Commission says employers are required to make exceptions to "no pet" policies for employees who rely on service animals, unless that would cause undue hardship.[20]
Short-term conditions are treated separately in the State regulation. For a temporary disability, the NYSHRL may require modified work schedules, reassignment to an available position or available light duty, or schedule adjustments for recovery.[21]
What are "essential functions," and who decides?
Accommodation is tied to the core duties of the job. Under the federal ADA, a "qualified individual" is a person who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation; the employer's judgment is considered, and a written job description prepared before advertising or interviewing is evidence of what is essential.[22] The ADA regulation defines essential functions as the fundamental job duties and excludes marginal functions.[23] The Second Circuit requires a fact-specific inquiry under the ADA, and has held that being physically present at or by a specific time is not, as a matter of law, an essential function of all employment.[24]
Under the State regulation, the employee has to be able to attain reasonable performance, which "is not perfect performance or performance unaffected by the disability."[25] Under the NYCHRL, the question is framed as the "essential requisites of the job," and the inability to satisfy them even with accommodation is a defense the employer has to prove.[12]
What is an employer not required to do?
- Take on an undue hardship. The ADA, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL each stop the duty at undue hardship.[11][26][5] The NYCHRL states that the employer has the burden of proving it.[5]
- Supply personal items. The State regulation excludes personal care needs and non-work-related aids such as a personal hearing aid or wheelchair.[15]
- Invent a job. The State regulation says the NYSHRL does not require creating a completely unique position.[15]
- Override a seniority system. Under the ADA, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a requested accommodation that conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily not reasonable, unless the employee shows special circumstances.[27] The NYC Commission says reassignment does not require violating a bona fide seniority system or collective bargaining agreement.[16]
- Hold a job open with no end date, under federal and State law. The Second Circuit has said the ADA does not require holding a position open indefinitely, and the Court of Appeals has said indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the NYSHRL.[19][28] The NYC Commission says no accommodation, including indefinite leave, is categorically excluded under the NYCHRL.[29]
- Accept a direct threat. The ADA lets an employer require that a person not pose a direct threat, defined as a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.[30] The State regulation says accommodation is not required where the disability or the accommodation itself poses a direct threat, determined by an individualized assessment.[31]
- Waive conduct rules entirely. The State regulation says the NYSHRL does not require accommodating behavior that fails consistently applied workplace standards, though reasonable and necessary deviations from dress codes, grooming standards and attendance policy must be allowed.[32]
- Accommodate a perceived condition, under federal law. The ADA does not require accommodation for a person who meets its definition only because the employer regards them as disabled.[33]
Who chooses the accommodation?
Under the State regulation, the employer has the right to select which reasonable accommodation will be provided, so long as it is effective in meeting the need.[8] Under the ADA, the Second Circuit has held that where the employer has already provided or offered an accommodation that is "plainly reasonable" on the undisputed record, that ends the analysis.[34] The employee has a choice too: the ADA does not require anyone to accept an accommodation, and the State regulation gives an employee the right to refuse one if the employee can do the job in a reasonable manner without it.[35][8]
What changed recently?
- March 2025, federal. The Second Circuit held that accommodations that are not strictly necessary for performing essential job functions may still be reasonable and therefore required by the ADA. The court vacated the judgment and sent the case back, leaving to the trial court whether the accommodation requested there was reasonable.[7]
- December 2025, New York State. The NYSHRL was amended to list a request for a reasonable accommodation as protected from retaliation.[36]
- December 2025, New York City. The NYC Commission on Human Rights replaced its earlier disability guidance with a new edition.[37]
For the rule against punishing a request, see protected activity. For the whole section, return to the disability discrimination overview.
Common questions
What are examples of reasonable accommodations?
The federal ADA lists accessible facilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, new or modified equipment, adjusted examinations, training materials or policies, and qualified readers or interpreters.[4] The New York State Human Rights Law lists an accessible worksite, acquisition or modification of equipment, support services for persons with impaired hearing or vision, job restructuring and modified work schedules.[2] Both lists are open-ended.
Does my employer have to give me the accommodation I asked for?
Not necessarily. The New York State regulation says the employer has the right to select which reasonable accommodation will be provided, so long as it is effective in meeting the need.[8] Under the federal ADA, the Second Circuit has held that when the accommodation an employer has already provided or offered is plainly reasonable on the undisputed record, that ends the analysis.[34] Under the New York City Human Rights Law, the NYC Commission on Human Rights says a person cannot simply reject an accommodation that would be sufficient to meet their needs because it is not the preferred one.[38]
Can my employer refuse because I can already do my job without the accommodation?
Under the federal ADA, not for that reason alone in the Second Circuit. In March 2025 that court held that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without it, and that ability to perform is relevant but not dispositive.[7] Under the New York City Human Rights Law, the Commission says employees need not prove an accommodation is necessary.[13]
Does an employer have to create a new job or remove essential duties?
The New York State regulation says the State Human Rights Law does not require, as job restructuring, the creation of a completely unique position tailored to the individual's abilities.[15] Under the federal ADA, a qualified individual is a person who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and the essential functions do not include marginal ones.[22][23]
Can I turn down an accommodation my employer offers?
Nothing in the federal ADA requires a person with a disability to accept an accommodation they choose not to accept.[14] The New York State regulation gives an employee the right to refuse an accommodation if the employee can perform the job in a reasonable manner without it.[8] In New York City, the Commission says the cooperative dialogue can end when a suitable accommodation was offered and refused and no reasonable alternative was identified.[39]
Sources
- 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)–(B) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(3)(a), 292(21-e) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a) — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102 (definition of "Reasonable accommodation") — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 2009) — static.case.law
- Tudor v. Whitehall Cent. Sch. Dist., 132 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2025) — CourtListener, Free Law Project
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(j)(6), (k)(5) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2008) — static.case.law
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(j)(4)–(5), (k)(1)–(5); N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(3)(d) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(b); Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824, 845 (2014) — New York City Commission on Human Rights
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 26–27 — City of New York
- 42 U.S.C. § 12201(b), (d), (g) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(a)(2)–(3), (f)(6) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 50–51, 54–55 & n.126 — City of New York
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002, Question 34 area ("work at home") — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 56–57 — City of New York
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002, "Leave"; Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 185–86 (2d Cir. 2006) — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 52–54; N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 47-a; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(14) — City of New York
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(i)(1)–(3) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)–(2) — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2013) — static.case.law
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(d)(1)(ii), (f)(3) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(3)(b); 9 NYCRR § 466.11(b)(2) — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 394, 405 (2002) — static.case.law
- Romanello v. Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A., 22 N.Y.3d 881, 884–85 (2013) — static.case.law
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 55–56, 58 — City of New York
- 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(3), 12113(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(g)(2) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 9 NYCRR § 466.11(g)(1) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 42 U.S.C. § 12201(h); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(4) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Noll v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2015) — static.case.law
- 42 U.S.C. § 12201(d), (h); Pub. L. 110-325, §§ 6(a), 8 — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(7); L. 2025, ch. 600, §§ 1–4 — New York State Senate, Laws of New York
- NYC Commission on Human Rights, Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability (Dec. 2025), cover and contents (pp. 1–3) — City of New York
- NYC Commission on Human Rights, Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability (Dec. 2025), pp. 33–35 — City of New York
- CCHR Disability Guidance (Dec. 2025) pp. 35–36 — City of New York