Remote Work and the ADA: Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Mandating Return to Office

Smith v. District of Columbia should embolden all disabled employees, whose disability necessities remote work to perform the essential function of their job, in their reasonable accommodation requests. 

Interestingly, this case stems from a court employee of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Here, plaintiff was in remission from breast cancer and operatively, was permitted to work remotely for over 2 years because COVID heightened her health risks where she received exemplary reviews, but was then instructed to return to the office under a hybrid rotational schedule, which caused her to resign based on a failure to accommodate her health-related needs. 

The issue before the Court was whether return to office was an essential function of the case-specific job, and thus, the refusal to return would pose an undue hardship, which would permit the employer to deny the accommodation request. To determine this issue, the Court advised that: 

• "The plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a disability but can perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation."
• “Essential functions are ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position.’”  
• "In determining what duties are 'fundamental,' the ADA expressly provides that 'consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.'" 
• “[I]f an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 
• "Also relevant are the “work experience of past incumbents in the job.” 
• "The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”  
• "Whether the employer actually requires employees in the position to perform the functions that the employer asserts are essential” and “[i]f so, then the question of essentiality comes down to ‘whether removing the function would fundamentally alter that position.’

During the case, the "Defendant identified a list of no less than 18 public-facing job function," which were substantiated by "[t]he written job description... and a USA job posting." Additionally, plaintiff failed to identify any comparator "who worked only from home." In all, the evidence demonstrated a very good case for a hardship, except for plaintiff's prior remote work where she "received the highest overall performance ratings during this time," where her work was even described as "exemplary."

In all, the Court held that because "she was able to perform the job at the highest levels while working remotely for two years[, a] reasonable juror may conclude from that fact that the on-site elements of the job were marginal, rather than essential."

The lesson is simple - employers who give remote work and then take it away, by requiring return to office whereby they argue that in-office is an essential function of the job, are going to have a hard time getting failure-to-accommodate cases dismissed on summary judgment.  

If your employer denied your request for remote work or other accommodations related to your disability, you don’t have to face it alone. Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. today to discuss your rights and legal options.

From Texas to New York: Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination Protections at Work

The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has been effective since June 27, 2023 and requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits the denial of job opportunities incident to pregnancy from both public and private employers based on the need for such an accomodation. To illustrate, the law provides pregnant employees the right to obtain reasonable accommodations to go to medical appointments and to limit their job function incident to restrictions on movement, except if such function is an essential job function. Under the law, victims can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), within 180 or 300 days (based on whether the applicable state has a Fair Employment Practices Agency), and then, after receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, they can sue their employers, in court, for back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

However, after the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act passed, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas temporarily blocked its enforcement against the State of Texas, as an employer, based on arguments that it was passed unconstitutional by proxy voting in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause. Now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life as against the State of Texas.

While this is great for pregnant Texas employees, pregnant employees throughout the United States should not just stop at leveraging this federal law when exercising their rights because this law is just a floor of rights under which other federal, state, and local laws may not fall.

For example, a pregnant worker in New York is also protected by the State's Human Rights Law, which has been protecting victims from pregnancy discrimination since 1974. In fact, the New York State Division of Human Rights has published a comprehensive Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations of Pregnancy-Related Conditions for Employers in New York State. The guidance explains that in 2015, the Human Rights Law was amended to expressly address the rights of those with a "pregnancy-related condition," rather than just affording those rights to the extent that pregnancy caused a disability, which was separately protected under the Human Rights Law. Under either route under the Human Rights Law, a pregnant worker can bring a case in state court or before an administrative tribunal at the Division of Human Rights while seeking compensation for the emotional distress, lost wages, and attorneys' fees incident to their employer's failure to accommodate their reasonable needs or if such employee experiences an adverse employment action due to their pregnancy status.

Even further, as of 2025, New York because the first state in the nation to offer Paid Prenatal Leave for prenatal care or any medical care related to pregnancy in an amendment to Labor Law 196-b. Now, privately-employed pregnant workers are able to receive an additional 20 hours of paid sick leave for prenatal care in addition to their existing sick leave, which includes physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions with a health care provider related to the pregnancy. Interestingly, under this Paid Prenatal Leave law, employers cannot even ask pregnancy employees to disclosure confidential information about their health as a condition of use, which when exercised is to be paid at normal hourly rates and enforced by the Department of Labor. 

Additionally, and regardless of the state that the victim is located, other federal laws also protect pregnant workers from discrimination, including Title VII, which was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and which prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions with respect to adverse employment actions. This law requires employers to treat pregnancy workers the same as other temporarily disabled employees and to provide health benefits to pregnant workers to the extent otherwise provided to other workers. Additionally, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) separately protects pregnant workers' pregnancy related conditions that qualify as a disability from discrimination. Both Title VII and the ADA are enforceable to the same extent as the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, by filing a charge with EEOC and suing thereafter in federal court. 

Finally, pregnant workers should also pay attention to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), that provides unpaid job-protection for certain family and medical leave reasons, and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to give rights to nursing mothers at work, which is enforceable by private lawsuit, but with a 10 day notice for compliance provision. 

In all, pregnant workers enjoy a lot of job related protections and while the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act now being applicable to Texas state workers is important, employers and employees alike need to take a deep dive into understanding all of the applicable pregnancy employment rights before a misstep causes a very expensive lawsuit.

If you believe your employer has denied you pregnancy-related accommodations or treated you unfairly because of your pregnancy, you don’t have to navigate it alone. Lieb at Law, P.C. represents employees in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Colorado in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation cases. Contact us today to protect your rights and explore your legal options.

Match.com’s $14M Settlement: Why Connecticut Beats New York for Class Actions for Unfair Trade Practices

Match.com and its sister dating sites, like Hinge and Tinder, just agreed to pay $14 million after the FTC settled with them for using scammer accounts to lure people into paid subscriptions, hiding restrictive promo terms, and making cancellation so tricky you’d think you were breaking out of prison.

Even though Match.com settled with the FTC, that doesn't mean that consumers can't sue next in a class action lawsuit where consumers can recover even more money. If you’re thinking of bringing this class action, as the class representative, where you bring the lawsuit really matters in what results you can expect.

Connecticut vs. New York

In CT, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") lets consumers recover punitive damages with no cap. Plus, if you couple the lawsuit with another cause of action, like identity theft under CGS 52-571h, which provides for treble damages (triple your actual damages), the sky would be the limit as we recently saw when the CT Supreme Court ruled that a Plaintiff could recover both together (treble + punitive) in White v. FCW Law Offices. That means if the bad behavior is really bad, the award can climb into serious money. Plus, CUTPA provides for attorneys’ fees if you win.

While NY has a similar law, General Business Law § 349, that also allows treble damages, it caps them at just $1,000. Moreover, the statute does not provide for punitive damages where a separate cause of action that provides for punitive damages would be necessary to obtain them in NY and even then, NY courts keep them relatively low as compared to CT. In other words, in New York, even a slam-dunk case can hit a low ceiling.

When a company tricks consumers, with items like fake account messages, buried terms, and/or intentionally hard cancellations, which in turn hurts thousands of people, a class action in CT (in Fed Court based on the diversity that would likely exist) could mean a much bigger payout for consumers than the same case in NY.

Even more important is picking a firm that knows various state laws and can guide you to the right forum that gives you the best opportunity and knows how to work the law to your advantage. 

So next time you hear about a big consumer case or deceptive business practice, remember the where and the who matter just as much as the what. The right state can mean the difference between a small payout and a meaningful recovery, and the right law firm will know exactly where and how to file to get you the best result.

If you believe you’ve been misled by a company’s deceptive practices, don’t leave money on the table. Contact Lieb at Law today to evaluate your potential class action claim. 

*attorney advertising

Is Calling a Male Employee BALD Employment Discrimination?

Apparently, the UK thinks so, but what about in NYS?

In NYS, you'd have to prove that such a comment rose above a petty slight or trivial inconvenience so context would be everything. In such, we have questions:

1. Was it said as a joke or a slight?
2. Who said it - management or a co-worker?
3. When / Where was it said?
4. Was it only said once or repeatedly?
5. Did the victim ask for it not to be said and then, was it said again after?
6. Was it just said, or was the victim given clothing that called him "the bald guy"? 
7. Was it just a comment or an identity?
8. Were other bald men not called bald? 
9. What about bald women?
10. Did the victim have an underlying medical condition contributing to being bald - like cancer treatments? 

The list goes on, but the answer isn't simple. Regardless, NYS has a relatively low standard to prove hostile work environment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. In contract, federal law, under Title VII, requires proof that the harassment was severe and pervasive, which would be much harder to prove. Either way, context is everything and eliciting the right evidence is what makes you win or lose this type of case. So, don't just ask an AI, sit down for a comprehensive consultation to learn whether you have a sexual harassment case. 

Use our Discrimination Case Checklist to see how your situation measures up, and then contact Lieb at Law to discuss your rights and options. Our team is here to help you determine if you have a case and fight for the justice you deserve.

*attorney advertising

Think You Were Racially Discriminated Against at Work? You’re Not Alone - And Here’s How to Prove It

According to Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health: Experiences and Impacts Across Racial and Ethnic Groups, a 2023 national study, these are the percentages of people who reported that they have experienced discrimination within the past year:

• White People = 38% 
• Black People = 54% 
• Latino People = 50%
• Asian People = 42%

Yet, believing that you were discriminated and proving it are two totally different things. 

The key to proving discrimination is that you can demonstrate an adverse employment action with respect to available of a job, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, that occured BECAUSE of your race. 

The fact that you are black and something bad happens to you at work is not discrimination. However, the fact that something bad happens to you at work BECAUSE you are black is discrimination. 

The best way to prove that the adverse action occurred BECAUSE of your race is by having:

1. A comparator of a different race, in the same position, with the same essential job functions, who did not have the same adverse employment action or compensation;
2. Experienced a hostile environment in terms of discriminatory speech that was documented or witnesses - saying something to you that was offensive and tied to your race, like the N-Word;
3. Received false reasons for the actions taken - you can prove they are pretextual; or
4. Actions taken that expressly violate a company policy or procedure. 

If you believe you may have been a victim of workplace discrimination, the first step is understanding whether your experience meets the legal test. Use our Discrimination Case Checklist to see how your situation measures up, and then contact Lieb at Law to discuss your rights and options. Our team is here to help you determine if you have a case and fight for the justice you deserve.

*Attorney Advertising

Are Company DEI Programs Going to Get Them Sued for Reverse Discrimination?

This past month, the Department of Justice issued guidance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for Funding Recipients, but every employer and employee (regardless of government funding) should take notice of this guidance because it explains a lot of acts that give rise to a reverse discrimination lawsuit and many employees now seem to have a good case. 

Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics like race, sex, and religion, and if you object to a policy you believe is discriminatory, you are legally protected from retaliation. The DOJ’s new guidance clarifies that all discrimination, including “reverse discrimination” is illegal, even when done with good intentions under a DEI label. 

This means that policies giving preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, promotions, or contracting are likely unlawful. Watch out for “diverse slate” mandates or quotas in hiring, as these are specifically called out by the DOJ as problematic. 

The government is also scrutinizing seemingly neutral terms like “cultural competence” when they are just used as a substitute for race. Notably, DEI training that segregates employees by race or promotes stereotypes can create a hostile environment and violate federal law. The main takeaway is clear: workplace policies must ensure equal opportunity for everyone, without exception, and calling a discriminatory policy DEI does not protect it from constituting actionable discrimination.