The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that an employer may not require an employee to telework from home as a reasonable accommodation for their disability when the employee would rather work in person. The case is Ali v. Regan, D.C. Cir., No. 22-5124 (Aug. 9, 2024).
The plaintiff worked as an economist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He suffered from severe allergies, which resulted in bleeding, itching, rashes, swelling, and difficulty with breathing, seeing, walking, and sleeping. After working in a private office for ten years, the plaintiff worked at home for several months before being moved to a cubicle in 2007. He sued the EPA for failure to reasonably accommodate his disability, but the suit was dismissed because of his failure to provide medical information.
The plaintiff worked another four years in his cubicle until a co-worker who wore very strong cologne moved next to him. The cologne triggered his allergies and made another co-worker nauseous. He asked his supervisors to be moved to a private office or small conference room. They offered him another cubicle, but the available cubicles were too near the scent or printers, which also triggered his allergies. The EPA did not further respond to his request. Two months later, the plaintiff formally asked for reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act.
In June 2012, after reviewing his requested medical documentation, the EPA determined that the plaintiff was a person with a disability and offered to discuss reasonable accommodations. The same day, his supervisor approved his reasonable accommodation request, allowing him to work indefinitely from home. The plaintiff explained why working from home was not a good option, nor what he requested, and reiterated his request to be moved, but the EPA did not respond.
In March 2013, the plaintiff asked that another co-worker be moved due to the use of scented products. The supervisor refused and advised that they had offered the plaintiff reasonable accommodation in the form of telework, but he chose not to take it.
The plaintiff then filed a complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that the EPA had failed to accommodate his disability and retaliated, harassed, and discriminated against him. At the agency hearing, the plaintiff explained that he did not have a home office, could not print documents at home due to his allergies to printer ink, and needed to interact with colleagues in person. His supervisor presented air quality test results showing that the air in a private office was not substantially different from that of a cubicle. The administrative judge ruled in favor of the EPA, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) upheld that ruling.
The plaintiff filed suit challenging the EEOC ruling in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, finding that the plaintiff rejected the EPA’s reasonable accommodation offer. However, the D.C. Circuit disagreed on appeal, finding that the agency failed to discuss the plaintiff’s problems with working from home. As a result, the Court remanded the case for a trial on the plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claim.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and H.R./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)
- 5th Circuit Upholds Most No Surprises Act Provisions - December 11, 2024
