that held that telework was rarely an effective reasonable accommodation, it also observed that class of cases in which an employee can fulfill all requirements of the job while working “the remotely has greatly expanded” as a result of technological developments. Although Harris had work problems when she had a flex-time arrangement for her disability, telework did not raise the same concerns because she would work normal business hours. The problems Harris experienced while she worked a flex-time schedule all occurred because she was working during non-core hours, not because she was working from home. Furthermore, it was Ford that prohibited Harris from working at home during core hours, leaving her no choice but to work during non-core hours when she could not consult with colleagues. With telework, Harris would be available for an emergency or to join in an impromptu meeting during core hours. Similarly, to the extent coworkers had to take on some of Harris’s job duties, it was because she was not working during normal work hours. Mistakes made by Harris because she could not consult after hours with others would not have occurred if she had been working a regular schedule from home. Ford offered no evidence that telework was problematic.” Finally, the court “inherently rejected Ford’s argument that telework was not a reasonable accommodation given Harris’s attendance problems, noting that her attendance issues were the result of her disability. An employer cannot deny a reasonable accommodation that could eliminate performance problems created by a disability. 7. Changing Supervisors No new cases added. 8. Stress-Free Job No new added. 9. Workplace Free of Chemical Irritants No new added. 10. Monitoring Medication and Effects of Disability No new cases added. 11. Modifying Workplace Policies No new cases added. 12. Job Coaches/Assistance from Other Employees No new added.
that held that telework was rarely an effective reasonable accommodation, it also observed that “the class of cases in which an employee can fulfill all requirements of the job while working remotely has greatly expanded” as a result of technological developments. Although Harris had work problems when she had a flex-time arrangement for her disability, telework did not raise the same concerns because she would work normal business hours. The problems Harris experienced while she worked a flex-time schedule all occurred because she was working during non-core hours, not because she was working from home. Furthermore, it was Ford that prohibited Harris from working at home during core hours, leaving her no choice but to work during non-core hours when she could not consult with colleagues. With telework, Harris would be available for an emergency or to join in an impromptu meeting during core hours. Similarly, to the extent coworkers had to take on some of Harris’s job duties, it was because she was not working during normal work hours. Mistakes made by Harris because she could not consult after hours with others would not have occurred if she had been working a regular schedule from home. Ford offered no evidence that telework was “inherently problematic.” Finally, the court rejected Ford’s argument that telework was not a reasonable accommodation given Harris’s attendance problems, noting that her attendance issues were the result of her disability. An employer cannot deny a reasonable accommodation that could eliminate performance problems created by a disability. 7. Changing Supervisors No new cases added. 8. Stress-Free Job No new added. 9. Workplace Free of Chemical Irritants No new added. 10. Monitoring Medication and Effects of Disability No new cases added. 11. Modifying Workplace Policies No new cases added. 12. Job Coaches/Assistance from Other Employees No new added.
EEOC_ADA_Case_Law_Update_%202014_walkerjones.docx