In a significant ruling affecting the business community, a federal appeals court has concluded that a telecommuting arrangement could be a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee even if the employer, in its business judgment, determined that working remotely was an insufficient substitute for in-person work.

1. Toll Free: 877.880.4477
Phone: 281.880.6525
www.hrp.net
Telecommuting as a Reasonable
ADA Accommodation

2. www.hrp.net
In a significant ruling affecting the business community, a federal appeals
court has concluded that a telecommuting arrangement could be a
reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee even if the employer, in
its business judgment, determined that working remotely was an insufficient
substitute for in-person work.
»
• The court's interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA);
• Its recognition of the latest advances in technology; and
• A finding that jobs suitable for telecommuting are no longer
"extraordinary" or "unusual." (EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-2484, 6th
Cir. April 22, 2014)
The case, brought on behalf of a fired Ford Motor Company employee by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was based on:

3. www.hrp.net
"…As technology has advanced in the intervening decades, and an ever-
greater number of employers and employees utilize remote work
arrangements, attendance at the workplace can no longer be assumed to
mean attendance at the employer's physical location," wrote Judge Karen
Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
»
"Instead, the law must respond to the advance of technology in the
employment context, as it has in other areas of modern life, and recognize
that the 'workplace' is anywhere that an employee can perform her job
duties," Moore wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion.

4. Is Telecommuting a Good Idea for Your Workplace?
The answer depends on a few factors. One
company -- Ctrip, a Chinese travel website -- did a
nine-month test run with volunteers to find out. The
results of the study were later published in the
Harvard Business Review.
www.hrp.net
One question Ctrip wanted to answer was whether it could save money on
office space and furniture, by allowing employees to work from their homes.
The employer asked for volunteers to participate in the study. Half of the
volunteers remained working in the office as a control group, while the other
half telecommuted for the nine-month test period.
At the end of the study, Ctrip found they saved $1,900 per employee on
office space and furniture costs. That was significant. But what happened to
productivity?

5. The results were a pleasant surprise. Among the group of home workers:
www.hrp.net
• Attrition decreased.
• Productivity (measured by the number of calls completed) increased by
13.5 percent;
• The number of sick days taken plummeted; and
• Most home workers reported much higher levels of job satisfaction.

6. Reasons Cited
Ctrip attributed the lower attrition rate to the flexibility of working from home. The
increase in productivity might have occurred because telecommuters had a quieter
environment, uninterrupted by co-workers, and because home workers tended to
put in more hours overall.
www.hrp.net
Of course, not everyone or every job is well-suited to working from home. In the
Ctrip study, some who volunteered to telecommute chose to return to the office
after the test period.
Those who achieved success as telecommuters tended to be strong in self-discipline
and the ability to self-motivate.
The study also concluded that the people best suited to working from home were
those who had established social lives outside of the office -- such as married people,
parents, and older employees. Younger workers generally were less content working
from home, possibly because their social lives were tied to co-workers.
Bottom line: Telecommuting has been criticized in some circles. But for the right job
and the right people, the benefits to employers and employees can be well worth
considering.

7. The District Court
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary
judgment for Ford, ruling that attendance at the job site was an essential
function of Harris's job, and that she was not a qualified individual under the
ADA.
The court also ruled that Harris's telework request was not a reasonable
accommodation for her job. The court further said the EEOC could not prove
Harris's termination was retaliatory because it was based on attendance and
performance issues that pre-dated her filing of the complaint.
www.hrp.net

8. The Appeals Court
The Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court on both counts in April, offering a
broad view of what constitutes a workplace given the changes in technology.
The majority said the case presented a "highly fact-specific" question
regarding whether presence at the Ford facilities was truly essential, and that
a jury should decide that issue. The court also ruled that the EEOC had
created a question for the jury about why Ford terminated Harris, and
whether it was in retaliation for filing a charge or because of genuine
performance problems.
In a dissent, Judge David W. McKeague stated there was no evidence that
technology had changed sufficiently to alter previous rulings that regular
attendance generally is an essential job function and telecommuting is
reasonable only in unusual cases. He said the ruling may prompt companies
to tighten their telecommuting policies to avoid legal liability.
www.hrp.net

9. The Reaction
Lawyers for the EEOC said the decision reaffirms an employer's important
obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it can show it
results in undue hardship to a company. They also said the appeals court
ruling was a clear recognition that workplace realities have evolved and made
teleworking a viable option for many persons whose disabilities can be better
managed at home rather than enduring long commutes and stressful working
conditions.
Ford expressed disappointment with the decision, noting that it conflicts with
earlier decisions from the Sixth Circuit and other federal courts. The company
said it is evaluating its options regarding further legal review.
www.hrp.net

10. 14550 Torrey Chase Blvd., Ste. 360 Houston, TX 77014 USA
www.hrp.net
E-mail : info@hrp.net
Toll Free
Phone
Fax
:
:
:
877.880.4477
281.880.6525
281.866.9426