The employee suffered from serious respiratory conditions. After working remotely during the pandemic, he requested permission to work his required in-office days from the employer's Staten Island office instead of its Manhattan headquarters, claiming the commute and office environment aggravated his medical issues.
The employer said no.
The 2nd Circuit agreed that the employee hadn't plausibly alleged disability discrimination or retaliation. There wasn't sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or a qualifying adverse employment action. Those claims were dismissed.
But the reasonable accommodation claim survived.
The employee claimed that the employer denied his accommodation request without engaging in a meaningful interactive process despite medical evidence that the Manhattan office and commute aggravated his respiratory disabilities.
Whether the requested accommodation was actually reasonable is a question for another day. The 2nd Circuit expressly declined to answer it. Indeed, the real lesson for employers isn't about remote work at all. It's about process.
Too many employers treat accommodation requests as problems to defeat instead of workplace problems to solve. The ADA does not require an employer to grant an employee's preferred accommodation, but it does require a thoughtful, individualized process—evaluating the request, considering alternatives, engaging in a genuine dialogue, and documenting why a proposed accommodation will or will not work.
That process becomes even more important when the employee has already performed the job successfully under the same or a similar arrangement. Prior remote work does not permanently entitle an employee to work from home. Business needs change, job duties evolve, and temporary pandemic practices do not necessarily become permanent essential-function determinations. But if an arrangement worked for an extended period and the employer now says it cannot work, the employer should be prepared to explain what changed—and support that explanation with facts, not assumptions.
A well-supported, well-documented accommodation analysis may keep a dispute from becoming a lawsuit. And if litigation follows, it gives the employer its best chance at a good resolution. Without it, however, an employer can win the discrimination and retaliation battles and still spend years fighting the reasonable accommodation war.
Whether the requested accommodation was actually reasonable is a question for another day. The 2nd Circuit expressly declined to answer it. Indeed, the real lesson for employers isn't about remote work at all. It's about process.
Too many employers treat accommodation requests as problems to defeat instead of workplace problems to solve. The ADA does not require an employer to grant an employee's preferred accommodation, but it does require a thoughtful, individualized process—evaluating the request, considering alternatives, engaging in a genuine dialogue, and documenting why a proposed accommodation will or will not work.
That process becomes even more important when the employee has already performed the job successfully under the same or a similar arrangement. Prior remote work does not permanently entitle an employee to work from home. Business needs change, job duties evolve, and temporary pandemic practices do not necessarily become permanent essential-function determinations. But if an arrangement worked for an extended period and the employer now says it cannot work, the employer should be prepared to explain what changed—and support that explanation with facts, not assumptions.
A well-supported, well-documented accommodation analysis may keep a dispute from becoming a lawsuit. And if litigation follows, it gives the employer its best chance at a good resolution. Without it, however, an employer can win the discrimination and retaliation battles and still spend years fighting the reasonable accommodation war.