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
A member of Plunkett Cooney's Bloomfield Hills office, Courtney L. Nichols serves as the firm's Litigation Department Leader.
Ms. Nichols focuses her litigation practice in the area of employment law, including discrimination ...
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Agreement
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Wage & Hour
- Employment Discrimination
- National Labor Relations Act
- Minimum Wage
- At Will Employment
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- COVID-19
- Civil Rights
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Contract Employees
- Coronavirus
- Tax Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Regulatory Law
- Title VII
- OSHA Issues
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Federal Trade Commission
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Harassment
- Contracts
- Transgender Issues
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Public Education
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Cannabis
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- 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
- 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
- Michigan Employers Can Legally Resist Union Organizing Efforts
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision Reinstates Previous Versions of Wage Laws
- Union Power in Michigan: Is it Real or Imagined?
- Employers Should act Now to Address Rising DOL Salary Thresholds for Exempt Employees
- Is This the end of the Employee Non-Compete Clause?