A “Reasonable Accommodation” Must Be Reasonable

By William E. O'Gara

March 12, 2020

For employers determining what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” can often be a challenge. A very recent decision by a federal court in Connecticut highlights the fact that what constitutes “reasonable” is not without limits, and an employer is not obligated to create new positions or allow employees to work without supervision. Wang v. HP, Inc., Civil No. 3:17-cv-2096 (D. Conn. 2020).

In Wang, the Plaintiff, who suffered from depression and anxiety, worked remotely from his Connecticut home for Defendant HP, Inc. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff was informed of a corporate initiative encouraging all remote employees to “return to the office,” even if it meant relocating.

Plaintiff refused to relocate from Connecticut to Idaho, and later requested short-term disability leave, which was then extended to long-term disability leave because Plaintiff was “medically unable to perform the functions of his former position.” Plaintiff was ultimately terminated almost two years later because he was unable to find a vacant position for which he was qualified to fill at HP, Inc. Plaintiff then filed suit asserting that HP, Inc. violated the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by denying two separate requests for accommodation: (1) the first request being that he worked only twenty hours a week without contact with his former supervisor and colleagues, and (2) the second request providing a job assignment after he was approved to return to work thirty hours weekly.

A basic fact a plaintiff must prove in an ADA case is that an “effective accommodation exists” that would allow him to perform his job. The Court ruled that a request to change supervisors was unreasonable. The Court noted that the Plaintiff requested to “be employed in a setting, and workgroup in which he will have no day to day contact with former fellow employees and/or supervisors,” but Plaintiff offered no evidence that within the context of his particular workplace, this was a reasonable accommodation. In fact, this request would have essentially required the Defendant create a new position or allow Plaintiff to work without supervision which the Court held were not reasonable accommodations.

For further information, please contact PLDO Principal William E. O’Gara at 401-824-5100 or email wogara@pldolaw.com.

Recent Posts

HOW TO BUY ULTRA-DANGEROUS ASSETS

It’s never a good idea to buy an asset, like a boat or plane, in your own name or to have multiple parties on the title. First of all, when your name is on the title, you are personally liable for any damage that the asset may cause. For example, you and Joe own a...

SO, YOU WANT TO WRESTLE AN ALLIGATOR?

Before base jumping into the miasma of risk, the first thing you should do is make sure your estate plan, in its current iteration, meets your needs and has adapted to any challenging or changing family situation. A well-rounded estate plan is literally more of a life...

HASTE MAKES WASTE . . . CASH THE CHECK.

One never knows what corner the grim reaper lies behind. A final illness can often accelerate quickly and deprive a donor of adequate time to complete gifts for tax purposes that he intended to make. In a recent federal court case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals...