Revoked Accommodation? New Dress Code Rule Sparks ADA Lawsuit

It’s not often that dress codes and ADA accommodation claims cross paths – but if an employee asks to be excused from complying with a generally applicable dress code requirement as a disability-related job accommodation, employers need to know the ropes.

A continuing case from Maryland provides an example.

Employee Dress Code Requires Heels

In November 2016, Rebecca Lopez-Duprey began working as a cocktail server at the MGM Hotel and Casino in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

All cocktail servers were required to wear a uniform that included black high heels. Because she has what her doctor described as “Equinus Deformity” and “Achilles Tendinitis,” the shoe requirement posed a problem for her.

Lopez-Duprey says that in January 2017, she asked to wear flat shoes at work as a reasonable accommodation. The casino says it has no record of her making such a request at that time.

Lopez-Duprey also says that she repeatedly asked for the job accommodation, and that her requests were repeatedly denied.

Employer Seeks Accommodation Info From Doctor

In July 2019, the casino reached out to Lopez-Duprey’s doctor for more information. In response, the doctor relayed the diagnosis and said she should “avoid heels” and “wear good supportive shoes.”

A month later, the court’s decision says, the casino told Lopez-Duprey that she could wear flats or good support shoes instead of heels. Lopez-Duprey then began wearing Skechers-style shoes to work.

It seems that things were going fine until about December 2021, when the casino issued a new memo about “shoe standards.” The memo described proper shoes as well as shoes that were banned, and it provided images of three non-heeled shoes for employees who wore different shoes as an ADA accommodation.

The memo said employees needed to “have the correct shoes” by a date in early January, and it threatened disciplinary action for anyone who did not meet the shoe requirement.

In March 2022, Lopez-Duprey was disciplined because her shoes did not meet the newly described requirements.

In April, her doctor gave her a note that said she should be allowed to wear her Skechers-type shoe at work permanently. A month later, the casino terminated her employment for violating its “appearance standards.”

Employee Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Lopez-Duprey sued, accusing the casino of violating the ADA and state law by declining to accommodate her disability, discriminating against her based on her disability and retaliating against her.  She asked the court to grant summary judgment in her favor on her claims that the casino denied her an appropriate job accommodation.

The court denied the motion because important facts are in dispute.

The casino said it granted Lopez-Duprey’s request by allowing her to wear flat shoes, while Lopez-Duprey alleged that the casino essentially rescinded the accommodation via the memo.

In addition, the casino said it did not get the April 2022 doctor’s note until after Lopez-Duprey was terminated. Lopez-Duprey insists that the casino got the note in April.

There is just too much conflicting evidence to sort out regarding whether the initial accommodation was altered, whether Lopez-Duprey caused the accommodation process to break down, and when the casino got the doctor’s note. For that reason, her motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The case will proceed.

Key Points for HR

Let’s break down the key takeaways for HR from this ongoing litigation.

To clarify, the ADA does not prevent employers from implementing a dress code for their employees. Dress codes can serve a safety purpose (think construction workers) or make employees more easily identifiable to customers (think delivery drivers). It’s also perfectly OK for an employer to have a dress code for the purpose of conveying a certain image.

But sometimes, dress codes have to yield to an ADA accommodation request. If an employee seeks a disability-related exception, evaluate the legitimacy of the request and confirm the need for the accommodation.

This employer did so by seeking information from the employee’s health care provider. This is a perfectly fine step to take as long as the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious.

Once a legitimate need for accommodation is shown, the request should be granted unless the requirement at issue is what’s called “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” This is a fuzzy standard that can be hard to meet. It essentially means that the standard or requirement at issue must be met to enable satisfactory job performance. The main point here is this: Evaluate these requests carefully in light of how granting the accommodation would impact business operations.

Another important point to keep in mind: Don’t revoke a disability-related job accommodation unless a change in circumstances shows it is no longer appropriate or needed. Importantly, “if an accommodation is rescinded, the interactive process should include an analysis of whether a different accommodation would be effective and reasonable, and would not create undue hardship,” employment attorney Christy Phanthavong from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner Law previously told HRMorning.

Finally, here’s one you’ve no doubt heard before: Maintain solid documentation when it comes to creating and implementing job accommodations.

Lopez-Duprey v. MGM National Harbor, LLC, No. DKC 23-2812 (D. Md. 4/9/25).