Reply to CDC employees losing RA telework

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "CDC employees losing RA telework"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012)
Scenario: Employee with narcolepsy had difficulty driving in heavy traffic and asked to avoid a new shift schedule.
Ruling: The ADA does not require employers to accommodate commuting problems outside the workplace. The employer was not required to adjust the shift just to make the drive easier.

Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan, Inc. (10th Cir. 2021)
Scenario: Legally blind employee with a 60-mile commute asked to work only when she could secure a ride. She proposed telework on these days as an alternative accommodation, as some job functions could be performed remotely.
Ruling: The request was not reasonable. The ADA does not require an employer to accommodate unpredictable attendance stemming from transportation barriers. The employer was also not required to allow partial telework, as the employee did not show she could perform all essential job functions remotely.

Schneider v. Giant of Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2009)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty using public transportation and requested schedule changes.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide a different shift solely to ease commuting.

Salmon v. Dade County School Board (11th Cir. 1993)
Scenario: Teacher with vision impairment wanted transfer to a school closer to home.
Ruling: Employer was not obligated to accommodate by shortening the commute.

Lyons v. Legal Aid Society (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
Scenario: Attorney with a back injury requested reassignment closer to home to shorten subway commute.
Ruling: Employer not required to accommodate commute difficulties unrelated to the essential functions of the job.

Kimble v. Potter (10th Cir. 2009)
Scenario: Postal Service employee with lupus requested a transfer to a facility closer to her home to reduce her commute, which had become difficult due to her condition.
Ruling: The ADA does not obligate employers to accommodate commuting difficulties. A transfer intended solely to shorten the commute was not a reasonable accommodation, since it did not relate to the performance of essential job functions.

Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances.

Carr v. Reno (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Scenario: Employee with multiple sclerosis requested transfer to a closer office to reduce her commute.
Ruling: Employer was not required to transfer her solely to shorten the commute; commuting is not the employer’s responsibility under the Rehabilitation Act.

Gonzagowski v. Widnall (10th Cir. 1996)
Scenario: Civilian Air Force employee with a disability requested transfer to a base closer to home to ease commuting.
Ruling: The court held that commuting is not a job function and the ADA does not require employers to shorten or otherwise accommodate an employee’s commute.

Campbell v. Federal Express Corp. (6th Cir. 1998)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty driving to work during certain hours and requested schedule adjustments to avoid the commute at those times.
Ruling: Employer was not required to alter shifts solely to accommodate transportation problems outside the workplace.

Robinson v. Bodman (D.D.C. 2007)
Scenario: DOE employee with a medical condition sought a transfer to a closer office to reduce travel time.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide an accommodation related only to commuting; the ADA/Rehabilitation Act obligates accommodation of essential job functions, not travel.[/quote]

Did you use AI to generate this list?  I just tried to pull up Carr v. Reno.  I can't find a 1995 DC Circuit decision.  I did find a 1994 DC Circuit decision (23 F.3d 525).  In that decision, Carr, a DOJ employee with Meniere's disease, was fired because she was unable to work a consistent 8 hour day and meet a daily 4 pm deadline.  The DC Circuit upheld that ruling.  
 
Here's a paragraph from that decision:

"We are reminded that section 501 demands a great deal from federal employers in the way of accommodation. Indeed, in appropriate cases, that section requires an agency to consider work at home, as well as reassignment in another position, as potential forms of accommodation. See Langon v. HHS, 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding that an agency must consider accommodating a computer programmer with multiple sclerosis by allowing her to work at home). But under the facts of this case the U.S. Attorney's Office properly rejected these options. Ms. Carr concedes that she could not work as a Coding Clerk at home, as the job involves tight 4:00 p.m. deadlines. "[/quote]

And, for

"Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances."

Tyndall did have Lupus, which caused her to miss many days at work due to her illness. She missed more work due to taking care of her son.  She was terminated for missing too many days at work, and the 4th Circuit upheld that termination.  She was a great worker, but working on a regular basis was an essential aspect of her job as an instructor.

I don't see where she asked for full time WFH as a reasonable accomodation.  However, the court does state the following:

[i]"Except in the unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties at home, an employee "who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise."[/i] Wimbley v. Bolger, 642 F. Supp. 481, 485 (W.D.Tenn. 1986), aff'd, 831 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1987). Therefore, a regular and reliable level of attendance is a necessary element of most jobs." (emphasis added).

Seems pretty clear that the 4th circuit was being very careful to NOT let someone infer from this ruling that coming into the office was a necessary element of the job if the employee could effectively perform all work-related duties at home.

You really shouldn't cite cases without reading them.[/quote]

To be perfectly clear - neither of these two cases was someone in a role that could be performed completely remotely asking to WFH due to a medical condition making a commute difficult, having that request denied, and appealing it. [/quote]

Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012) summarizes that issue in this paragraph:

"Though this Circuit has not yet decided this precise issue, [b]many courts have found that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s commute.[/b] Robinson v. Bodman, 333 Fed.Appx. 205, 208 (9th Cir.2009) (“The [employer] was not required to accommodate [the plaintiffs] inability to drive to work or use public transportation. Although an employer is required to make reasonable accommodations to eliminate barriers for a disabled employee in the workplace, [b]the employer is not required to eliminate barriers outside the workplace that make it more difficult for the employee to get to and from work....”[/b]); LaResca v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph, 161 F.Supp.2d 323, 333 (D.N.J.2001) (“[b][T]he change to day shift sought by Plaintiff is not an ‘accommodation,’ that it is legally obligated to provide, but is simply a request for an easier, more convenient commute.[/b]”); Salmon v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1163 (S.D.Fla.1998) (rejecting plaintiffs claims that employer “failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a school which afforded her a shorter commute [because] [b]plaintiffs commute to and from work is an activity that is unrelated to and outside of her job[/b]”); Schneider v. Confl Cas. Co., No. 95 C 1820, 1996 WL 944721, at 9 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 16, 1996) (finding employer is not required to eliminate an employee’s commute to accommodate the employee’s back injury); see also Chandler v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 850 F.Supp. 728, 736 (N.D.Ill. 1994) ([b]employee’s inability to undertake a long commute because of back injury was not a disability for purposes of the employer’s benefit plan but instead a limitation within the employee’s control[/b]). “While an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations that eliminate barriers in the work environment, [b]an employer is not required to eliminate those barriers which exist outside the work environment.[/b]” Salmon, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1163."[/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