A few weeks ago, I penned a piece for BusinessWest discussing two recent discrimination cases where juries awarded over $20 million in damages to former employees. (You can read more about those cases here.) The MCAD case I am about to talk about below doesn’t hit quite as hard—the former employee there was awarded $75,000 in damages (plus attorney’s fees) after her employer failed to accommodate her work from home request. Still, it serves as a reminder that in certain circumstances, accommodations related to working from home may be required under the law.
The Case
The employee in this case, C.G., worked as a Buyer in a Purchasing Department for her former employer. She lived about 35 miles from work, and it took her 1-2 hours to commute each way. In early January 2017 she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. According to C.G., the long commute worsened her pain. So, she asked to work from home on a regular basis. She was able to support this request with a note from her medical provider that “stated [C.G.] had a medical condition, exacerbated by prolonged periods of driving,” and working from home two days a week “would help to alleviate some of [C.G.’s] pain.”
The employer was not receptive to this request. C.G.’s supervisor told HR he did not want this to be a work-from-home arrangement, and this was “non-negotiable.” The supervisor also pushed the idea of a severance package for C.G. instead of engaging in the interactive process with her. (This is the point where we remind readers about the importance of regular supervisor training.)
Eventually, HR got involved, and more letters went back-and-forth between the employer and C.G.’s medical provider. In the end, the employer was firm that it would not provide the accommodation for the following reasons (according to MCAD):
- The employer “had too much going on”;
- C.G was not sufficiently focused at work;
- It would be difficult for C.G.’s supervisor to ensure she got her work done; and
- C.G.’s supervisor would have to change what he was doing for the day to ensure that C.G.’s work was covered, which would “put the company at risk”
Maybe some of this was true, with the exception of the entire company being “at risk” if one employee worked from home a few days a week. Even so, the problem for the employer was that these concerns do not rise to the level of creating an undue hardship on the business. If an employer is going to reject an accommodation request, it needs to be able to show that granting such request would cause significant difficulty or expense. This is a high standard, especially for larger employers. MCAD determined the employer could not meet its burden in this case. There was evidence that showed C.G. and others had worked form home in the past as many as 10-15 times per year, and this never caused any problems. And, much of C.G.’s work involved communicating with sales staff and vendors, which she could effectively do with a cell phone and laptop from home.
The Result
MCAD found that C.G.’s employer unlawfully denied her reasonable work from home request, and awarded her $75,000 in emotional distress damages. Her lawyer(s) will also get paid, as anti-discrimination laws have fee shifting provisions that allow prevailing attorneys to seek their fees associated with securing successful judgments.
Bottom Line
Next time you are thinking about rejecting an accommodation request outright, think again. Or, better yet, contact labor and employment counsel for guidance. 75,000 in damages is not $20 million, but it’s no small potatoes, either.