Federal Appeals Court Sides With EEOC Against Ford Motor Company: Telecommuting May Be Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Employee

Author: Beth P. Zoller, XpertHR Legal Editor

April 30, 2014

The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Ford Motor Company by reversing and remanding a district court decision that telecommuting could not be a reasonable workplace accommodation for an employee with a disability. Given the advances in modern technology, the 6th Circuit said, telecommuting can be a reasonable accommodation because it permits employees with a disability to perform their job duties without being physically present in their employer's workplace. The court noted, however, that an employer that is against telecommuting must prove that being present in the workplace is an essential requirement of the job.

In this case, an employee working as a buyer for Ford frequently called in sick because she suffered from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Initially, Ford permitted her to telecommute from home on a trial basis on a flex time schedule. This approach, however, was unsuccessful because the employee failed to establish consistent work hours.

Since Ford had a policy permitting employees to telecommute up to four days a week, the employee eventually asked if she could telecommute, as needed, to accommodate her condition. Ford denied her request on the basis that her position required frequent interaction with co-workers and suppliers so it was not suitable for telecommuting. Ford then offered her alternative accommodations including a different position more suitable for telecommuting or a cubicle near the restroom. The employee rejected these options and was subsequently terminated. She then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC sued Ford in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan charging that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying the employee's request to telecommute, even though Ford allowed telecommuting, and firing her after she filed the charge with the EEOC. The EEOC argued that the employee's job was suitable for telecommuting because she was primarily required to engage in telephone and computer contact with co-workers and suppliers.

The district court dismissed the EEOC's claim. It held that the case should not proceed because there were no factual issues for a jury to decide. It held that attendance was an essential function of the employee's job and that, as a result of her disability-related absences, she was not a qualified to perform her job. Therefore, she was not protected by the ADA. The court also ruled that telecommuting was not a reasonable accommodation for the employee's job and that the EEOC could not prove her termination was retaliatory because it was based on prior attendance and performance issues.

The appellate court reversed the district court ruling and sent the case back to the district court for further consideration of the issues based on the appellate court's determination. The appellate court determined that "the law must respond to the advance of technology in the employment context . . . and recognize that the 'workplace' is anywhere that an employee can perform her job duties." In today's workplace, the court added, it is possible for an employee to effectively perform all work-related duties from a remote location including teamwork with co-workers.

The appellate court noted that whether physical presence at an employer's workplace is truly essential to a particular job is a highly fact-specific inquiry that should be decided by a jury. Factors to be considered in this inquiry include:

  • Written job descriptions;
  • The employer's business judgment;
  • The amount of time the employee spends performing the particular job function; and
  • The work experience of past and present employees in the same or similar positions.

The court added that advances in technology and communications, such as teleconferencing, have decreased the need for in-person contact to conduct group conversations. It also held that the district court still needed to decide whether the employee's termination was retaliatory and based on her filing of the EEOC charge, or based on true performance issues.

In a press release, EEOC Assistant General Counsel Carolyn Wheeler said that she is "pleased" with the decision and the appellate court's recognition that workplace realties have evolved and "made teleworking a viable option for many persons whose disabilities can be better managed at home than during long commutes and long hours in the 'brick-and-mortar' workplace."

Based on this decision, an employer faced with an accommodation request should engage in an interactive process with a disabled employee to consider all reasonable alternatives that would effectively permit the employee to perform his or her job. Employers should approach requests by disabled employees to telecommute on a case-by-case basis and make a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the employee's particular job duties. Employers also should consider technological advances and whether they will impact an employee's ability to perform his or her job. In addition, written job descriptions should accurately reflect the work to be performed and the essential functions of the job, including whether physical presence at the employer's workplace is required.