No Duty to Speculate: Third Circuit Reinforces ADA Notice Requirements

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit makes clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require employers to guess when an employee needs an accommodation. On July 20, 2026, the Third Circuit reinforced in Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., that an employer must have knowledge of an employee’s disability and be aware of the need for accommodation before a duty to engage in the interactive process is triggered. 182 F.4th 283 (3d Cir. 2026). The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) follows the framework set forth under the ADA, as the LAD also requires employers engage in the interactive process. See e.g., N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 10:5-50; Tynan v. Vicinage 13 of Superior Court, 351 N.J. Super. 385, 396 (App. Div. 2002).

In Hileman, a supervisor launched an investigation after receiving notice an employee was sleeping during shifts. Hospital policies expressly prohibited sleeping on duty. During a disciplinary meeting the employee disclosed, for the first time, that she had diabetes and suggested that medication side effects caused her to shut her eyes. The hospital subsequently terminated the employee for violating its policies. The employee filed suit alleging several claims, including failure to accommodate under the ADA.

The District Court granted summary judgment, ruling the hospital had no duty to accommodate because the employee only disclosed her medical condition after being confronted with alleged misconduct. Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01119-MJH, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24112, at *14–*16 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2025). The Third Circuit affirmed, ruling the hospital need not “hunt for a possible accommodation request” absent a clear request by the employee. The Court noted that employers generally may enforce neutral workplace policies, like bans against sleeping at work, even when a disability may have caused the violation.

The decision is instructive as it explains that a belated medical disclosure does not excuse an employee from legitimate discipline. Additionally, neutral workplace policies are generally enforceable even if a disability contributed to a violation. However, the Third Circuit noted where an employee’s “need for accommodation is obvious from visible or known facts,” employers may still need to treat vague comments as requests for help and follow up.

• The interactive process is generally not triggered without knowledge of a disability or a request for reasonable accommodation.
• In most cases, employers need not speculate about a disability or accommodation.
• Without a request for accommodation, employers may generally enforce facially neutral workplace policies but should clearly document the basis for discipline.