Feds Only Reasonable Accomodations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That is not settled law. There is case law that says your commute does not have to be accommodated.

[Anonymous]

Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That is not settled law. There is case law that says your commute does not have to be accommodated.

Only if it’s unreasonable for the employer not to accommodate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

What kind of accommodation do you think you need? What aren’t you medically able to do because of your condition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

What kind of accommodation do you think you need? What aren’t you medically able to do because of your condition?

Currently hybrid, in 2 times a week with lengthy commute. Called back full time starting soon. Speaking to HR next week, just trying to gather information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

What kind of accommodation do you think you need? What aren’t you medically able to do because of your condition?

Currently hybrid, in 2 times a week with lengthy commute. Called back full time starting soon. Speaking to HR next week, just trying to gather information.

Well you should probably know that pregnancy is not a disability so it’s not going to get you accommodations under ADA. That would require that you have complications that fall within the definition of a disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Of course not. People work up to their delivery date in every profession. I know several surgeons who have, you can do your desk job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Of course not. People work up to their delivery date in every profession. I know several surgeons who have, you can do your desk job.

Wrong.

With any RA, the answer is always "it depends." RAs are inherently fact-specific, and depend wholly on the disability and its effect on major life functions, and the position. There is no categorical answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Of course not. People work up to their delivery date in every profession. I know several surgeons who have, you can do your desk job.

Wrong.

With any RA, the answer is always "it depends." RAs are inherently fact-specific, and depend wholly on the disability and its effect on major life functions, and the position. There is no categorical answer.

No you’re wrong. RA are only available for a disability and pregnancy alone does not meet that definition. If PP has complications and those complications qualify as a disability then accommodations may be required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

What kind of accommodation do you think you need? What aren’t you medically able to do because of your condition?

Currently hybrid, in 2 times a week with lengthy commute. Called back full time starting soon. Speaking to HR next week, just trying to gather information.

Np. This will not be granted a reasonable accommodation because it's a temporary medical issue. My employee broke her leg and I got her a temporary telework waiver due to this. She needed to telework because she couldn't drive a vehicle (and we aren't near public transport). This waiver had to be signed by the head of my agency however, and that level of approval is hard to receive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

Urogynecologist surgical staffer here. Unless you live in Palm Springs and are commuting to Vegas across the desert, there will be a bathroom along the commute. It’s fine to stop along the way.

Alternatives include Depends/Thinx and / or wicking pads.

Cmon. You’re already wearing the absorbent pads and briefs in your home office, admit this. Just change when you arrive at work. Bring a disposable wipe.

My employer would never agree to sign a letter with her name and NPI stating someone with your diagnosis can’t drive.

Genuine question - for many feds there is no parking option, so my commute via transit is one hour door to door. What about fecal incontinence? Also changing diaper etc is very embarrassing and time consuming in a public restroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Depends on what you need. Read up on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. If needed, you can get accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Of course not. People work up to their delivery date in every profession. I know several surgeons who have, you can do your desk job.

Wrong.

With any RA, the answer is always "it depends." RAs are inherently fact-specific, and depend wholly on the disability and its effect on major life functions, and the position. There is no categorical answer.

No you’re wrong. RA are only available for a disability and pregnancy alone does not meet that definition. If PP has complications and those complications qualify as a disability then accommodations may be required.

That person is correct. It really depends. PWFA is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would pregnancy be a situation for reasonable accommodation? No current complications.

Read up on this in case you need it. This thread shows that many do not know what is available.

https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-pregnant-workers-fairness-act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure all the shop workers and waiters are rolling their eyes at your need for WFO. Most people have long commutes and make less. Also true for hospital workers, mechanics and receptionists. If they get sick or have kids and can’t make it work, they find a new job close to home, work PT or quit. America doesn’t make it easy since there’s almost no safety net.

I’m sure they are rolling their eyes, but who cares?

Construction workers work outdoors without heat and AC. Should everyone else have to work without heat and AC in order to make it fair?

Should everyone from grocery baggers to neurosurgeons be paid the same $20 per hour to make it fair?

Shop workers and waiters don’t have to stay shop workers and waiters forever.

99% of people who WFH in the last several years have not done so since the beginning of their working lives. My first couple of jobs were working at a tree nursery, daycare, and a bakery. I had many different jobs. I worked my way up and up and now I am in a a high skill WFH job. That’s how it’s supposed to work, no?

If WFH is truly less productive then why not cut those salaries to where they match the productivity and skill set instead of increasing costs by requiring RTO?