Once an employee requests an accommodation, or the employer otherwise becomes aware a disability-related limitation may require one, the ADA and most analogous state statutes require the employer to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify an effective accommodation. This typically involves discussing the employee's specific limitations, the essential functions of the job, and possible accommodation options, and may include requesting reasonable medical documentation.

Federal circuits are split on whether a failure to engage in the interactive process is independently actionable or is only relevant as evidence toward the ultimate question of whether a reasonable accommodation existed. Even where a bare failure is not standalone liability, courts widely treat a breakdown in the process, particularly one caused by the employer's delay, refusal to discuss options, or unresponsiveness, as strong evidence supporting a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Because the interactive process generates its own documentary trail, independent of whether an accommodation was ultimately provided, it is often the most concretely provable part of an accommodation dispute. In Juricratic, the interactive-process record is modeled as a distinct evidentiary input, since a well-documented good-faith process can meaningfully reduce simulated exposure even in a case where no accommodation was ultimately reached.

HR and counsel document each step of the interactive process contemporaneously, including who caused any delay, because a well-documented good-faith process is one of the strongest defenses available even where an accommodation ultimately proved infeasible. Plaintiff's counsel looks for gaps, unreturned communications, or a unilateral employer decision made without input from the employee.