Even An Extensive Interactive Process Does Not Guarantee An ADA Win

Insurance Through Claims. One claim. One policy provision. One lesson.

What Happened In Torres V. SHRM

In Torres v. SHRM, a job applicant requested permission to bring a trained diabetes-alert service dog after receiving a conditional offer. SHRM said it considered several alternative accommodations. Torres argued those alternatives did not adequately address her needs.

On October 9, a federal jury unanimously found in Torres’s favor (E.D. Virginia). SHRM disputes the verdict and is considering appellate options. This article is not a prediction of how an appeal will end. It is a claims-and-controls lesson for middle-market employers who run interactive processes every year.

The Policy Provision And The Lesson

The ADA interactive process is where employers and applicants (or employees) explore whether a reasonable accommodation can remove a workplace barrier without undue hardship. Many employers treat “we met, we listed options, we documented the file” as the finish line.

Torres is a useful stress test of that assumption. A process can be extensive on paper and still leave a gap if the alternatives do not map to the individual’s actual functional needs — here, the role of a trained diabetes-alert service dog versus other options the employer preferred.

Insurance Through Claims frames one claim, one provision, one lesson: the interactive process is not a checkbox ritual. The accommodation decision itself has to stand up when facts and needs are compared side by side.

What Employers Should Take From The Verdict

The lesson is not that every requested accommodation must be approved. Employers may still propose alternatives, negotiate scope, and assert undue hardship where the facts support it.

The lesson is that alternatives must be evaluated against the individual’s actual functional needs — not against a generic preference for a “simpler” option. If the need is continuous medical alerting that a service animal is trained to provide, a different break schedule or a monitoring app may not be a true substitute unless the record shows why it meets the same need.

When a conditional offer is withdrawn after an accommodation discussion, that decision deserves a second set of eyes. Juries and regulators look hard at whether the process was real or whether the outcome was decided first.

Three Controls That Make The Process Defensible

1. Document each proposed alternative. For every option the employer puts on the table, write what it is, why it was offered, and how it was supposed to meet the stated functional need. Vague “we considered other options” language is weak after a verdict like this.
2. Independently review decisions to withdraw conditional offers. Before a conditional offer dies after an accommodation request, have someone who was not the first decision-maker review the need, the alternatives, and the written rationale.
3. Preserve the complete interactive-process record. Keep the request, medical or functional information relied on, meeting notes, alternatives offered, the applicant’s responses, and the final decision in one file. Incomplete records turn a close call into a credibility problem.

The process must be more than documented. The actual accommodation decision must also be defensible.

How This Shows Up For Middle-Market Programs

Employment practices liability (EPL) and related coverages often respond to ADA and failure-to-accommodate allegations, subject to the form, definitions, and exclusions. Brokers and risk managers should treat interactive-process quality as a loss-control issue — not only an HR paperwork issue — because claim files are built from the same documents the jury later sees.

Georgia and Southeast middle-market employers in services, healthcare-adjacent, manufacturing, and professional firms see accommodation requests regularly. A clear playbook for service animals, medical devices, and schedule changes beats improvising under a conditional-offer clock.

Closing

Torres v. SHRM does not say employers must approve every service-dog request. It underscores that an interactive process that is long on meetings and short on functional fit is still a risk. Document alternatives against the real need, review offer withdrawals independently, and keep the full record.

Reach out to Tyler L. Gaynes when you want this run against your hiring and accommodation practices — or when a carrier letter, EPL notice, or HR file needs a clear next step. Start at /contact.

This article offers general professional perspective and is not legal advice or a representation of coverage for any specific policy or circumstance. Case facts are summarized from public reporting of the litigation and may evolve on appeal.