May 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 149

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

An Inconvenient ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Accommodation—Telecommuting

In its 2005 guidance on working at home, or telecommuting, as a reasonable accommodation, the EEOC said that “[m]any employers have discovered the benefits of allowing employees to work at home through telework…programs.” I suspect as many requests to work at home are met with quiet groans by employers as by the excitement of discovering the benefits of telework, especially when a “team” member is making the request. In such a case, one member working at home while the others are in the office can be extremely inconvenient, even an undue hardship, to the employer.

A recent Sixth Circuit decision is likely to lead to more telecommuting requests, and more lawsuits against employers denying these requests. EEOC v. Ford Motor Company (6th Cir. April 22, 2014). It is a “must read” for an employer evaluating a request to telecommute as an accommodation.

The EEOC had brought the suit against Ford on behalf of  Harris, a resale steel buyer, which is an intermediary between steel suppliers and the companies that use steel to produce parts for Ford.  To try to control the symptoms of her irritable bowel syndrome, Harris asked to telecommute “up to four days per week.” Ford argued that “the essence of the job was group problem-solving,” which required that the buyer be available to interact with others, and that her job included meeting with suppliers.  Ford denied the request; the district court granted summary judgment to Ford on the accommodation claim.

In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the EEOC had produced sufficient evidence to create disputed issues about whether presence at the worksite was an essential function of the job and whether telecommuting was a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that, due to the advance of technology, the workplace can no longer be assumed to mean the employer’s physical location. The court said that that the law must recognize “that the ‘workplace’ is anywhere that an employee can perform her job duties.”

Responding to the dissent’s comment that in 1997, the Sixth Circuit said that it would be an “unusual” case for an employee to survive summary judgment in a telecommuting case, the court said that “given the state of modern technology, it is no longer the case that jobs suitable for telecommuting are “extraordinary” or “unusual.”

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 139
Advertisement

About this Author

Michael Soltis, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Disability and Health Management Attorney
Office Managing Principal and Office Litigation Manager Stamford

Michael J. Soltis is Office Managing Principal and Litigation Manager of the Stamford, Connecticut, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has represented employers in a wide range of employment and labor matters for more than 30 years.

Mr. Soltis has advised on and litigated matters involving just about every type of employment claim, including discrimination claims, family and medical leave claims, public policy and whistleblower claims, contract claims, and common law employment claims. He has litigated cases in state court and...

203-961-0404
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement