Rough v. GlaxoSmithKline: ADA Accommodation and Reassignment

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer can refuse to move you away from a specific coworker if the separation isn’t operationally feasible or if your request is aimed at interpersonal stress rather than a functional limitation of your disability. The Ninth Circuit made that clear in Rough v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2023 decision holding that a “no contact” accommodation is sometimes reasonable and sometimes not, depending on the size of the workplace, the nature of the job, and what it would cost the employer to keep two employees apart.¹

What Happened in Rough v. GlaxoSmithKline

Fabiola Rough worked at a small GlaxoSmithKline facility. She had depression, anxiety, and stress that she connected to her interactions with one particular coworker, and she asked to be placed in a role with zero contact with that person. The company found a workable answer at first: it assigned Rough and the coworker to opposite shifts.¹

That solution ended when the facility consolidated into a single shift. With only one shift running, the two employees would have to work together again. Rough resigned, took a job elsewhere at nearly twice her prior pay, and sued, alleging that GlaxoSmithKline had failed to accommodate her disability under the ADA.¹

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer. The court did not say a “no contact” arrangement is never a reasonable accommodation. It said this one wasn’t, given the circumstances.¹

Why the Court Sided With the Employer

Two facts drove the ruling. First, the facility was small and everyone was expected to collaborate, so even transferring Rough to another role on-site would not have eliminated contact. Second, once the company moved to a single shift, giving Rough true separation would have required rebuilding a two-shift schedule or constructing a separate workspace. The court found either option would be an undue hardship on the employer.¹

The court also drew a line that matters for anyone thinking about a similar request. An accommodation exists to remove a specific barrier that prevents an employee from doing the job. It is not a tool to eliminate a source of general workplace stress. Rough’s request targeted a relationship, not a functional limitation, and that was the wrong fit for the statute.¹

What the ADA Actually Requires

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified employee because of a disability, and that prohibition includes refusing to make reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the business.²

The statute gives examples of reasonable accommodations: making facilities accessible, modifying work schedules, restructuring job duties, and reassigning an employee to a vacant position. The list is not exhaustive. It says accommodations “may include” these options, which leaves room for other solutions, but it anchors the analysis in modifications that connect to job performance.³

Undue hardship means significant difficulty or expense, judged against the cost of the accommodation, the employer’s financial resources, the size of the workforce, and the nature of the business. A request that a large corporation could absorb easily can be an undue hardship at a small facility. Context matters.³

Reassignment to a Different Position

Reassignment to a vacant position is listed in the ADA, but the EEOC treats it as a last resort. An employer should first look at accommodations that let you stay in your current role. Reassignment becomes appropriate only after the employer determines no effective accommodation exists for the position you already hold, or that other options would be an undue hardship.⁴

When reassignment is appropriate, the employer must place you in a vacant position equivalent in pay, status, and benefits if one exists. If no equivalent role is open, a lower-level vacancy you’re qualified for may suffice. You don’t need to be the most qualified candidate, only qualified for the position. The employer is not required to bump another employee or create a new role that doesn’t already exist.⁴

In Rough, reassignment would not have solved the problem because the facility was small enough that any on-site role still involved interaction with the coworker. That eliminated a route the ADA sometimes provides.

Can You Ask for a Different Supervisor or Coworker?

The EEOC has addressed this directly for supervisors. An employer does not have to provide a new supervisor as a reasonable accommodation. The employer may do so voluntarily, but the ADA doesn’t require it.⁴

What the ADA may require, even when a supervisor change is off the table, is a change in supervisory methods. If a manager’s communication style or oversight approach creates a barrier tied to your disability, the employer might need to adjust how the supervisor works with you. The distinction is between who manages you (not required to change) and how you’re managed (potentially required to change).⁴

The Rough decision applies the same logic to coworkers. An employer isn’t obligated to rearrange its workforce to keep two employees apart when the conflict is interpersonal rather than tied to a functional limitation of a disability.

The Interactive Process

When you request an accommodation, you and your employer are expected to engage in what the EEOC calls an informal interactive process to identify what you need and figure out an appropriate response. Both sides are expected to participate in good faith.⁴

You don’t need specific language to trigger this process. Telling a manager “my anxiety is making it impossible to concentrate in this workspace” is a request, even without mentioning the ADA. Employers who ignore vague requests or wait for formal paperwork risk liability for failing to engage at all.

In Rough, the company did engage. It initially accommodated the request through split shifts. What broke the arrangement was the operational shift to a single shift and the absence of any alternative that could give the employee complete separation. An employer’s obligation is to explore options in good faith. It is not a guarantee that every requested accommodation can be granted.

Where This Ruling Applies

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rough v. GlaxoSmithKline is binding in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.⁵ Courts in other parts of the country may find the reasoning persuasive but aren’t bound by it.

Other federal circuits have reached similar conclusions in comparable cases, and the EEOC’s guidance on supervisor changes applies nationwide. The specific holding — that a “no contact” accommodation for a coworker conflict can be unreasonable depending on the circumstances — carries the most legal weight inside the Ninth Circuit.

Filing Deadlines If You Want to Pursue a Claim

If you believe your employer has violated the ADA’s accommodation requirements, you generally have to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit. The deadline is 180 days from the alleged violation, extending to 300 days if a state or local anti-discrimination law also covers the complaint.⁶ Missing that window can bar the claim entirely, regardless of its merits.

After the EEOC investigates or issues a right-to-sue letter, you can proceed to federal court. Winning takes more than proving you have a disability and that work is stressful. The accommodation you request has to connect to a functional limitation, it has to be something the employer can provide without undue hardship, and how both sides handled the interactive process will matter to the outcome.

1
Justia. Fabiola Rough v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 12112 – Discrimination
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 12111
4
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA
5
United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. What is the Ninth Circuit?
6
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Time Limits for Filing a Complaint