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.
