The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires an employer to allow telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation. A “reasonable accommodation” is, “any change in the work environment or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities." Specifically, the guidance states: “An employer must modify its policy concerning where work is performed if such a change is needed as a reasonable accommodation, but only if this accommodation would be effective and would not cause an undue hardship.” Recently, in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 12-2484 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2014), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that providing telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation. This ruling was based, in part, upon the recent advancements in telecommunication technologies. In EEOC v. Ford, the employee who filed the case (“the plaintiff”) worked as a resale buyer for Ford, assisting the resale team deal with any problems that arose in the resale process between Ford and its steel suppliers. The plaintiff suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, a disease that caused her to use the bathroom frequently. Initially, Ford allowed the plaintiff to telecommute on an as needed basis, however, as her absences became more frequent, the plaintiff requested telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation; Ford refused. The plaintiff then filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC, which in turn filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Ford was awarded summary judgment by the district court. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the lower court. Initially the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff met her burden of proving she was she was qualified for her position if, she did not have to be physically present at Ford facilities, or alternatively, she was provided with a telecommuting accommodation. Ford was then required to prove that being present at the job site was an essential function of the plaintiff’s job, or that telecommuting was an undue hardship; Ford failed to show either. In making its decision the court noted that even when the plaintiff was in the office, “the vast majority of communications and interactions with both the internal and external stakeholders were done via conference call.” Accordingly, being in the office was not a requirement of the plaintiff’s job. Furthermore, telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation for the plaintiff because she could 1) perform all of her job functions from home, utilizing modern telecommunication technology, 2) maintain a regular and reliable work schedule and, 3) Ford already offered telecommuting on occasion as an option for its employees. Based on these facts the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back to District court for further deliberation. This case signals a possible change for employees requiring reasonable accommodations. Modern technology has altered the way everyone works, including people with disabilities. This means that employers and the courts have to reevaluate what accommodations are reasonable in the modern age. The Sixth Circuit has begun that process. If you require reasonable accommodations the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help, we are experienced in dealing with these types of cases. For more information contact us at: http://lebauneuworth.com/.
