Sixth Circuit Holds Telecommuting Not Always a
Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA
by Scott D. Blake - Monday, April 27, 2015
http://www.felhaber.com/sixth-circuit-holds-telecommuting-not-always-a-reasonableaccommodation-under-the-ada/
Advancements in technology has expanded society’s notion of what constitutes “the
workplace.” As employers are now granting more requests to work from home, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has begun to view telecommuting as a legally
required reasonable accommodation for many disabled employees who have difficulty getting to
work. Recently, however, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this approach, ruling that
regular, in-person attendance is an essential function of most jobs. Therefore, an employer did
not violate the ADA by denying the request of an employee who had irritable bowel syndrome to
telecommute from home up to four days per week.
In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-2484 (6th Cir. April 22, 2014), the EEOC sued Ford Motor
Company, who rejected a request by a “re-sale buyer” to telecommute as an accommodation
for her disability. Ford maintained that regular and predictable attendance was essential to be a
fully functional member of the resale team, as evidenced by the employee’s three previous
telecommuting stints, all of which failed miserably.
While EEOC showed that other re-sale buyers had been allowed to telecommute, the appeals
court observed that they only did so once a week and offered to come into the office on their
telecommute days if needed. In this instance, the employee sought four telecommuting days at
her discretion and did not want to be required to report to the office on those days.
The court also noted that Ford had offered other accommodations (i.e. moving her desk closer
to the bathroom and finding the employee another job more suitable for telecommuting), and
that the employee herself admitted that she could not perform 4 of her 10 main job
responsibilities from home and that her absences from work caused her to make mistakes.
Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the re-sale buyer position was highly interactive and
required extensive face-to-face interactions. Therefore, physical attendance was an essential
requirement of the job and that the employee therefore was not a qualified disabled person
entitled to her requested accommodation.
Key Take Away
1/2
This decision sides with the majority of federal courts addressing this issue. Bear in mind,
however, that this decision did not determine that telecommuting is always unreasonable – it
just ruled that it was not required in this particular case.
The Appeals Court gave significant weight to the fact that Ford attempted to accommodate
Harris on numerous occasions, all of which failed or were rejected by Harris. This is a signal
that employers should continue to engage in the interactive process with disabled employees in
an attempt to accommodate their disabilities. While not required in the Ford case,
telecommuting should certainly still be evaluated as one potential option depending on the
specific job requirements.
220 South 6th St, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 | [email protected] | 612-339-6321 | 800-989-6321
2/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)