The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees to commute. However, the court declined to establish a bright-line rule about when the ADA requires such accommodations. The case is EEOC v. Charter Communications LLC, 7th Cir., No. 22-1231 (July 28, 2023).
An employee at Charter Communications LLC worked a 12:00 – 9:00 p.m. shift at a call center about one hour away from his home. After he was diagnosed with cataracts and his optometrist advised him not to drive at night, he asked Charter to change his shift so that he no longer had to drive at night. Charter changed his shift to a 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. shift for 30 days.
At the end of the 30 days, the employee asked for an extension of the modified work schedule so that he had time to move closer to the workplace. Although its internal policy permitted work schedule changes, Charter denied the employee’s request the same day. The employee appealed, but Charter stated that it was not required under the ADA to provide the accommodation but had done so for the previous 30 days out of kindness.
When he returned to his original work schedule, the employee tried alternative means of commuting, including public transportation, carpooling, and friends. None of these alternatives were reliable or possible. He could not afford to move closer to work and ultimately left his employment.
The employee filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After conciliatory efforts with Charter failed, the EEOC filed suit, alleging that the employer had failed to provide reasonable accommodations to the employee in violation of the ADA and seeking damage and injunctive relief.
Charter filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, and the EEOC appealed. On appeal, Charter relied on previous EEOC guidance stating that accommodations concerning an employee’s commute are always beyond the requirements of the ADA. However, the 7th Circuit pointed to some ADA legislative history concerning accommodations that could be relevant, including schedule modifications that an employer could make at no cost. While the employee controls some aspects of commuting, such as where they live, the employer controls other aspects, such as the employee’s work schedule.
Therefore, the 7th Circuit ruled that Charter’s denial of the employee’s requested modification of his work schedule for an additional 30 days was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Charter had failed to accommodate him under the ADA. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and ordered that the case proceed to trial.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- Colorado First State to Place Price Cap on Prescription Drug - November 27, 2025
