When an employee can no longer perform their current role because of a disability, employers often focus on whether that job can be modified. While that is an important part of the reasonable accommodation process, an employer’s obligations do not end there.
A recent EEOC settlement involving a California medical center is a useful reminder that reassignment may also need to be considered. This reminder is especially important for Minnesota employers in light of an amendment to the Minnesota Human Rights Act set to take effect on August 1, 2026.
What Happened
On July 28, 2026, the EEOC announced a $200,000 settlement with a California medical center. According to the press release, the matter involved allegations that the medical center failed to consider reassignment as a reasonable accommodation.
The settlement does not mean every accommodation request requires reassignment. Rather, it reinforces a practical point for employers: when an employee cannot continue in their current position, the accommodation conversation may need to include whether there is a vacant role the employee can perform, with or without accommodation.
What the MHRA Amendment Changes
Effective August 1, 2026, the Minnesota Human Rights Act provides that failing to engage in the process of determining whether a reasonable accommodation exists for a person with a disability may be considered an unfair discriminatory practice under the MHRA.
For employers, the key phrase is “engage in the process.” Therefore, the amendment makes the interactive accommodation conversation more explicit under state law. Employers should not simply receive a request, make a quick yes-or-no decision, and move on. Instead, they need to participate in a timely, individualized discussion about what the employee needs, what limitations are involved, and what reasonable options
may exist.
Why this Matters for Employers
Many employers with 15 or more employees already recognize the interactive process under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Similarly, the provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act requiring employers to engage in the interactive process only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. See Minn. Stat. 363A.08, subd. 6. However, the broader, public policy statement of the Minnesota Human Rights Act now provides that failure to engage in the process to determine if a reasonable accommodation exists that would allow people with disabilities to participate fully in employment may be an unfair discriminatory practice. Therefore, despite the 15 or more-employee threshold under the more specific provision of the Act requiring employers to engage in the interactive process, best practice for employers under the broader, public policy statement of the Act, is to engage in the interactive process regardless of the number of employees. See Minn. Stat. 363A.02(c). In this way, the amended provision of the MHRA provides greater protection to employees than the federal ADA.
Reassignment as a Reasonable Accommodation
The EEOC settlement and the MHRA amendment point in the same direction: employers should be careful not to end the accommodation discussion too soon.
If an employee cannot perform their current job even with modifications, reassignment may need to be evaluated as a possible reasonable accommodation. While that does not guarantee placement in every situation, employers should have a process to identify open roles, assess whether the employee is qualified, and document why reassignment was or was not available. Such a process helps employers make better decisions and creates a clearer record if the decision is later questioned.
Practical Steps for Employers to Take Now
Employers can use this moment to strengthen their accommodation practices before a difficult situation arises.
First, employers are encouraged to review disability accommodation policies to confirm they describe an interactive process, including how requests are received, who evaluates them, and how follow-up conversations are handled.
Second, HR teams and managers should be equipped to recognize when an accommodation issue may be present. A request may come through as a doctor’s note, a return-to-work restriction, or a conversation about what the employee can no longer do.
Finally, create a consistent method for reviewing vacant positions when reassignment may be appropriate.
Looking Ahead
The recent EEOC settlement is a reminder that reasonable accommodation compliance is not just about the final decision. It is also about the quality of the process used to get there.
For Minnesota employers, the August 1, 2026 MHRA amendment makes that point even clearer. A timely, individualized, well documented interactive process can help businesses support employees, reduce risk, and make more confident decisions when accommodation questions arise.
Our team of employment law attorneys is equipped to review your current policies and practices to help ensure your business navigates the interactive process consistently and in compliance with the law. Let us be Your Guide.
Disclaimer: For general informational purposes only. Not legal advice. For assistance with your specific situation, please contact an attorney.