Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against persons with disabilities when applying for employment, hiring, and job training. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A common issue in enforcing this act is determining what accommodations employers can be reasonably expected to provide for their employees with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).

EEOC v. Charter Communications LLC is a suit that addresses whether the ADA requires employers to accommodate an employee’s commute to work. 75 F.4th 729 (7th Cir. 2023). The appellant, James Kimmons, was employed at a call center owned and operated by Charter Communication LLC (Charter). Kimmons requested that Charter make accommodations in his work schedule, which he claims were unlawfully denied. Due to the presence of cataracts in both of his eyes, commuting to work during evening hours became unsafe for Kimmons. Kimmons asked to modify his work schedule for thirty days to avoid traveling after sunset. Charter granted Kimmon’s initial request but did not allow Kimmons to continue working according to the modified work schedule at the end of the thirty days. The EEOC then filed a lawsuit claiming Charter’s refusal to accommodate was unlawful under Title I of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). EEOC v. Charter Communications, LLC, 75 F.4th 729.

Discriminatory intent claims involve proving that an intentional action, motivated by a discriminatory purpose, caused harm. This is sometimes also called disparate treatment. In contrast, a disparate impact claim can be brought when no intentional discrimination is apparent, but the outcomes of an action have negatively impacted a protected class. In the case of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, this protected class is individuals with disabilities.