The ruling draws a sharp line on what counts as reasonable in fast-paced roles
A federal appeals court ruled a restaurant worker's request to sit five minutes after every ten minutes of standing was unreasonable accommodation under the ADA.
The Sixth Circuit delivered its decision on December 17, affirming what many HR professionals have long suspected: not every accommodation request passes muster, even when a worker has legitimate health concerns.
Tawna Bowles was hired for a cashier position at Chicken Salad Chick, a fast-casual chain specializing in chicken salad varieties. During her interview at the Crestview Hills, Kentucky location, she disclosed difficulty standing for long periods and said she would require an unspecified amount of rest while working. The hiring manager offered her the job before the interview even concluded, setting a start date of January 2, 2023.
But Bowles never actually started. When she arrived for her first shift, management turned her away, citing a paperwork issue. The problem was her accommodation request, which had triggered a message to Mary Lou Atkins, the company's human resources chief.
Atkins asked Bowles for medical documentation. Bowles complied, submitting a doctor's note requesting a chair for standing limitations due to knee arthritis. Atkins pressed for specifics: How long could Bowles stand? How often would she need to sit? For how long?
In early February, Bowles provided her answer. She wanted to stand for ten minutes, then sit for five minutes, repeating this pattern throughout her shift.
Atkins said no. The company told Bowles it could not accommodate that specific request and had no position where she could sit continuously.
Bowles sued, claiming the restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Kentucky's civil rights law by refusing to accommodate her disability and failing to engage in good faith discussions about alternatives.
The appeals court sided firmly with the employer, and the reasoning matters for every HR department managing accommodation requests.
The cashier job at Chicken Salad Chick was anything but static. Workers operated the point-of-sale system, stocked drink stations and refrigerators, shuttled food from kitchen to customer, prepared beverages, cleaned tables, vacuumed, hauled trash, and scrubbed bathrooms. The job description emphasized a fast-paced environment requiring effective multitasking and constant mobility.
The court zeroed in on this reality. If Bowles sat for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing, she would spend a third of her shift parked at the cash register, unable to respond when a customer needed greeting, an order needed running, or a spill needed mopping.
That, the court said, fundamentally changes the job. A position requiring versatility and quick pivots would become largely register-bound for significant chunks of time. Meanwhile, coworkers would shoulder the duties Bowles could not perform while seated.
The decision draws an important line. The court pointed to earlier cases where sitting accommodations worked fine. A retail cashier who could do her register work from a stool succeeded. A mobile phone store employee whose job previously allowed sitting most of the day won his case.
But those jobs did not demand constant movement and rapid task-switching. The Chicken Salad Chick position did.
The court also addressed Bowles's claim that she was hired simply to run the register, not to be a full-service team member. No such register-only position existed, the court found. While people casually called it the cashier role, the actual job description and management testimony showed far broader responsibilities. Job titles matter less than actual duties.
Bowles suggested her initial interview comment about needing to sit intermittently should count as a valid accommodation request. The court disagreed sharply. Vague requests to sit as needed, without specifying duration or frequency, leave employers guessing. Companies are not required to speculate about disability needs.
The specificity matters. Bowles's lawsuit centered on her concrete request: five minutes of sitting after every ten minutes of standing. Courts require that accommodation requests defended in litigation match what employees actually asked for at work.
For HR professionals, the ruling offers reassurance. Clear documentation of essential job functions provides crucial defense. Written job descriptions carry weight, as does testimony from managers about actual workplace demands. When jobs genuinely require mobility and multitasking in fast-paced settings, accommodations that anchor employees to one spot for extended periods may fail the reasonableness test.
The decision also clarifies interactive process obligations. Bowles complained that the company took a month to reject her request and never proposed alternatives. The court noted that employers need not suggest counter-offers, though the company did engage by requesting medical documentation and asking for specific details about her needs.
Because Bowles's underlying request was unreasonable, her claim that the company failed to engage in proper back-and-forth discussions collapsed. You cannot win an interactive process claim without first proposing something reasonable to discuss.
The Sixth Circuit's message is practical: accommodation law requires flexibility from employers, but it does not require the impossible or the fundamentally disruptive.
