Reply to Feds Only Reasonable Accomodations

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Feds Only Reasonable Accomodations"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

That’s not the opposite of what I said above.  And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required.  But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

[b]For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim.  [/b]Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.[/quote]

I am a supervisor and have not heard of a single person asking for this. You are arguing against a straw man here, why IDK.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics