The Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
Under the ADA, employers are generally required to make “reasonable accommodations” to employees with disabilities unless the accommodation would result in “undue burden” on the employer. Reasonable accommodations may include things like making facilities used by employees readily accessible to persons with disabilities, or modifying equipment or devices to make them usable by persons with disabilities.
An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation, however, if it would result in “undue hardship” on the employer. Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as an employer’s size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation. A mere burden or disruption to the employer will not generally result in an “undue hardship.”
What constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” or an “undue hardship” has been the subject of litigation for decades. Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford addressed whether telecommuting qualified as a “reasonable accommodation” for a person with a disability.
In EEOC v. Ford, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a discrimination claim against Ford Motor Company on behalf of a disabled former Ford employee. The EEOC alleged that Ford violated the ADA by refusing the employee’s request to telecommute to work as a reasonable accommodation for her disability.
The Court in EEOC v. Ford, stated that the plaintiff bears the initial burden in an ADA complaint to establish that she is disabled and that she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Once the plaintiff has established that she is qualified under the ADA, the burden switches to the employer to show that the disabled employee is not able to perform all the essential functions of her job or that the proposed accommodation will impose an undue hardship on the business.
In EEOC v. Ford, the Court found that the employee met her first burden by showing that she was disabled. The employee has irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which qualifies as a disability under the ADA. The more complicated issue was whether the employee had been able to establish that she could perform all the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation. The employee argued that she could perform all essential functions of her job by telecommuting. Ford, however, countered that the employee could not perform all essential functions of her job by telecommuting because her physical presence was, in fact, an essential function of her job.
The Court sided with Ford and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the employee’s claim, finding that the employee’s presence at the job was an “essential function” that could not be accomplished by telecommuting. In doing so, the Court noted that the employee was in the field of sales and that her relationships and face-to-face interactions were an important part of her job.
The Court, however, did not limit its ruling to just sales positions, but made a much larger generalization, stating “that regularly attending work on-site is essential to most jobs, especially the interactive ones.” The logical conclusion from this statement is that, from the Court’s perspective, telecommuting is rarely a reasonable accommodation for most jobs (at least to the extent that telecommuting is requested for multiple days each week, as was the case in EEOC v. Ford).
