Skip to main content

Telecommuting is NOT a Reasonable Accommodation, According to Another Court


Doak v. Johnson - District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Edna Doak ("Doak") worked as an analyst in the Office of Acquisition Resources Management at the United States Coast Guard.  Doak suffered from several debilitating conditions that caused her to miss a significant amount of work, with little to no predictable pattern.  After she exhausted her FMLA leave, Doak requested various accommodations including a late start time of 11 AM (everyone else started between 6 AM and 8 AM) and telecommuting.  Doak's late start time and telecommuting requests were denied on the grounds that Doak's position required her to interact frequently with various co-workers.  The requested accommodations were found to not allow her to perform those job functions. Doak was subsequently terminated from her position due to her ongoing inability to work a regular schedule

Doak brought suit against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard on the grounds that she was discriminated against in violation of the Rehabilitation Act because she had allegedly been unlawfully denied her accommodations and terminated in retaliation for requesting those accommodations.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Holding:  The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendants and held that Doak's proposed accommodations would not enable her to perform the essential functions of her job.  Doak's job requirements required she be present during regular work hours and was thus an essential function of the job.  When confronted with this issue, the Court noted that Doak failed to present any evidence to the contrary.

Judgment:  The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and found that Doak could not prevail on her Rehabilitation Act claim since the evidence showed her requested accommodations, a late start and telecommuting, would not allow her to perform the essential job functions of her specific position.

The Takeaway:  This is yet another court which has held that telecommuting is not a reasonable accommodation in certain situations.  Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. reached a similar conclusion:  When an employee's job responsibilities include a requirement that they be present in the office, a request to be allowed to telecommute is often not a reasonable accommodation.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Millett

Date:  August 18, 2015

Opinion:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1711036.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more