In EEOC v Ford Motor Company, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized that “given the state of modern technology, it is no longer the case that jobs suitable for telecommuting are ‘extraordinary’ or ‘unusual’.”
Simply put: it is more likely than not that allowing an employee to telecommute will be found to be a reasonable accommodation.
This case emphasizes the uphill battle employers need to be prepared to fight if relying on an “undue burden” argument to support its decision to deny a request for an accommodation. Demonstrating an undue burden entails consideration of the following factors: the nature and cost of the accommodation; the financial and personnel resources of the affected facility; the resources of the employer as an entity; and the structure and functions of the employer’s workplace.
When an employer has significant financial and labor resources, winning an “undue burden” argument may be very difficult.
Click here for a more detailed analysis of this case.
- Partner
Courtney L. Nichols serves as the leader of Plunkett Cooney’s Litigation Department, and she is a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment Law Practice Group. Ms. Nichols also has the distinction of serving as a member of the Board ...
Add a comment
Topics
- Employment Liability
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Agreement
- Labor Law
- At Will Employment
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Wage & Hour
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Arbitration
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Minimum Wage
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- COVID-19
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Civil Rights
- Contract Employees
- Regulatory Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Title VII
- Earned Sick Time
- OSHA Issues
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Tax Law
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Transgender Issues
- Unemployment Benefits
- Contracts
- Federal Trade Commission
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Business Risk Management
- Hostile Work Environment
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Public Education
- Cannabis
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Federal Court Rules State Discrimination Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration
- Are Boilerplate Terms in Employment Applications Enforceable?
- Is Your Business Ready for Pay Transparency Laws?
- Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split in Reverse Discrimination Cases
- Michigan Legislature Avoids Chaos by Amending Earned Sick Time Act Just Prior to Deadline
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements





