A new opinion out today supporting employee’s rights to telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation. Andrea Mosby-Meachem, an in-house attorney for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, was denied a request to work from home for ten weeks while she was on bedrest due to complications from pregnancy. Mrs. Mosby-Meacham was awarded judgment by a jury for disability discrimination including compensatory damages. Defense attempted to argue that her position as in-house counsel required in-person attendance as an essential function of her job. Mrs. Mosby-Meacham’s supervisor, Cheryl Patterson, issued a directive that all attorneys in the legal department must be in the office performing their duties between 8:30 and 5:00 p.m. There was no formal policy in writing on the matter of telecommuting which was a practice and benefit to numerous employees including Meacham whom previously worked from home for two weeks after a neck surgery. Meacham’s doctors placed her on bed rest arising out of some potential complications and she communicated this to Patterson. Meacham formally requested an official accommodation that she be permitted to work from a bed either within the hospital or from home for ten weeks. Supporting medical documents were attached to the request. The ADA committee at Memphis Light denied the request. Meacham proceeded with FMLA leave and short term disability. Meacham filed a lawsuit which was removed from state to federal court. A jury awarded 92,000.00 in compensatory damages for her disability discrimination claim but returned a verdict for Memphis Light on claims of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. Meacham attested that the enumerated duties and functions of her position required in-person attendance, however she provided proof at trial they could be performed remotely for the period of ten weeks. This proof was supported by a number of other legal department employees who testified that such could be performed remotely. The jury also heard evidence that the job description on which MLG&W relied was based on a 20-year-old questionnaire that did not reflect changes in the job that have resulted from technological advancements since that time, rather than a 2010 questionnaire Mosby-Meachem herself had completed prior to any of the events in this litigation. Memphis Light attempted to argue prior precedent held in EEOC vs. Ford Motor Co. 782 F.3d 753, 762–63 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) which stated that “[r]egular, in-person attendance is an essential function—and a prerequisite to essential functions—of most jobs, especially the interactive ones,” precludes a reasonable jury from finding that Mosby-Meachem was “otherwise qualified” from performing her job while she was on bedrest. The Court of Appeals held this case was distinguishable in that the Plaintiff had an extensive history of poor performance and high absenteeism. Meachem had performed her duties remotely in the past without any attendance issues or decline in work product. Memphis Light stipulated that Meacham did not practice in Court and thus their argument that she could not appear in Court was moot.
Meacham furthrer put on proof that Memphis Light failed to engage in any interactive process required under ADA. “[o]nce the employee requests an accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an ‘interactive process’ to ‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Melange v. City of Ctr. Line, 482 F. App’x 81, 84–85 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). There was testimony by a number of employees that telecommuting would not be an option under any circumstance. Given this evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded that MLG&W did not actually engage in an interactive process and that its proposed accommodation was not reasonable. See Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025, 1041 (6th Cir. 2014) (“[F]ailure to engage in the interactive process is . . . an independent violation of the ADA if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie showing that he proposed a reasonable accommodation.”).
The key facts to take from this case and opinion here are that this was a short term accommodation and that she had performed her duties remotely in the past without complaint from her employer. It must be shown that the essential duties and functions of the job may be performed remotely without substantial harm to employer. Technology today permits many types of positions to be performed remotely but this opinion should not be applied as a broad brush stroke to every requesting for telecommuting as an accommodation.
Andrea Mosby Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water 2:14-cv-02156
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvfdco160511000050
About Roland
