When Your Employer Ignores Your Accommodation Request
You submitted the request. You described the condition. You asked for accommodation. And then — nothing. No response. No meeting. No interactive process. No acknowledgment. The silence is not neutral. Under FEHA, the silence is the violation.
The interactive process is mandatory. When an employee requests a reasonable accommodation for a disability, FEHA requires the employer to engage in a “timely, good faith, interactive process” to determine effective accommodations. The obligation is not discretionary. It is triggered by the request, and the employer must respond.
Some employers respond by denying the accommodation. Some respond by requesting more information. And some respond with silence — no acknowledgment, no meeting, no discussion, no engagement of any kind.
The silence is the worst response — because it is a failure to engage in the interactive process, which is an independent violation of FEHA under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n), regardless of whether a reasonable accommodation existed.
What the silence means legally
The failure to engage in the interactive process is a standalone violation. The employee does not need to prove that a reasonable accommodation was available. The employee needs to prove that they requested accommodation, that the employer did not engage in the interactive process, and that the failure caused harm.
This is significant because it means the employer’s silence cannot be defended by arguing “there was no reasonable accommodation anyway.” The employer that does not engage in the process does not get to make that argument — because the process is how the question is answered. An employer that refuses to have the conversation cannot claim the conversation would have been fruitless.
Why employers go silent
Employers ignore accommodation requests for several reasons, none of them legally valid.
They don’t recognize the request. The employee said “I need some help with my schedule because of my medical appointments” rather than “I am requesting a reasonable accommodation under FEHA.” The employer treated the statement as a casual remark rather than a legal trigger. But the law does not require magic words — any communication that conveys a medical condition and a need for adjustment is a request, and the employer’s failure to recognize it does not excuse the failure to respond.
They hope the employee will drop it. The employer calculates that if it ignores the request long enough, the employee will stop asking. Many employees do. The silence works as a strategy precisely because most employees do not know that the silence itself is actionable.
They have already decided not to accommodate. The employer has determined — without engaging in the process, without exploring alternatives, without evaluating undue hardship — that it will not accommodate the employee. Instead of articulating the denial and engaging in the dialogue the law requires, it says nothing. The silence substitutes for a denial the employer does not want to put in writing.
What to do
An employee whose accommodation request has been ignored should:
Follow up in writing. Send a second written communication referencing the original request: “On [date], I submitted a request for reasonable accommodation for my medical condition. I have not received a response. I am requesting that the company engage in the interactive process as required by law.”
The follow-up serves two purposes: it creates a record of the employer’s continued failure to respond, and it eliminates any argument that the employer did not understand the first request.
Set a deadline. “I would appreciate a response by [date — typically seven to ten business days].” A reasonable deadline creates a clear point after which the employer’s silence is unambiguously a failure to engage.
Preserve the record. Save every communication — the original request, the follow-up, and the employer’s silence. The absence of a response is itself evidence. A record showing a clear request, a follow-up, and no response is a compelling exhibit.
Consult with an attorney. If the employer does not respond to the follow-up, the failure to engage in the interactive process is established. An attorney can evaluate whether to proceed with an internal escalation, a CRD complaint, or litigation.
The harm caused by silence
The employer’s silence causes harm that is independent of whether an accommodation was ultimately available. The employee who receives no response does not know whether accommodation is possible. They cannot plan. They cannot work. They remain in limbo — uncertain whether they will be accommodated, whether they will be terminated, or whether the employer has simply decided to pretend they do not exist.
The limbo is the harm. And the law recognizes it — which is why the failure to engage in the interactive process is actionable on its own, without requiring the employee to prove that a specific accommodation would have worked.
If you requested a reasonable accommodation and your employer did not respond — no meeting, no dialogue, no acknowledgment — the silence is a violation. FEHA requires the employer to engage in the interactive process. Silence is not engagement. It is the failure the law prohibits.
This article is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Every situation turns on its particular facts.