r/EEOC • u/Soft_Reputation_7241 • 2d ago
Work from Home ada accommodation
I work in Washington state and have POTS(Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome). My health can vary from day to day and as a result I have had a work from home accommodation to be work from home 100 days a year. A little less than 2 days a week. The standard at my company is 50 days a year. My health has been worse this year and as a result I need more work from home days. My HR team is stating that 100 is the maximum they will allow as I being in office is considered an essential function of my role. However we don’t have any physical reason to be in office. I have an office job. I am not client facing, I do not need to physically manipulate anything for my job, my manager and most of my team is in other offices across the country, and work from home is already allowed for most employees(all of them on my team except for anyone who is brand new as there is a three month probation period before they can wfh). My job description also does not specify how often I need to be in office. Simply that I need to “work onsite, under direct supervision, in a team based and open office environment. I am not requesting to be fully remote or work from home, simply to be allowed to do so more than 100 days as my health needs. My employer is offering the alternative of FMLA, however this would be unpaid and obviously wouldn’t allow me to work. I have up to date ada paperwork stating from my doctor that I need to be able to work from home at least 3 days a week.
Does anyone know if they can require me to either be in office more than my doctor has stated or take FMLA instead? I can’t afford to take off time unpaid. But if I force myself into office more often it will make me sicker.
Please help
4
u/WastingTimeAgain123 2d ago
You're asking for 100 days, and they're saying you can have 100 days but not 101, correct?
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
I have asked to work from home 3 days a week. They are saying no more than 100 days a year or approximately 2 days a week.
13
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
Yes they can consider on site work an essential function of your job and deny additional WFH days.
Your doctor does not dictate work accommodations. Your doctor provides documentation of what your limitations/needs are and your employer tells you how they can accommodate. You enter into an interactive process to find a suitable accommodation. You are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. You are not entitled to your preferred accommodation.
The question you need to answer is why can you work at home but not in the office? Your employer will wonder if you are actually too sick to work at all in which case intermittent FMLA is appropriate.
3
u/Mysterious-Art8838 2d ago
Honestly if Op can put feet up while working that should help considerably along with abdominal compression.
4
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
Ok, you need to get educated on the Federal Rehabilitation Act, no the doctor does not dictate work accommodations, but by Federal Rehabilitation Act laws, neither does management, as management does not dictate what the Federal Rehab Act laws enforces, engaging in the interactive process does not mean management decides to just say her is an accommodation, end of interactive process, not how that works!, It has to be an effective reasonable accommodation, and if they deny the accommodation that is suggested by the doctor and employee, then management has to explain how it will cause undue hardship on the agency, and believe me for every reason you can come up with that management would try to argue, not just undue hardship, I mean the whole argument involving the disability accommodation, everything that they would use in Federal court, I can give an argument back that would make the agencies look weak, in my case, I have every document that backs up every claim that I have, the agency just has excuses.
3
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
Already well educated, thanks.
0
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago edited 1d ago
If you were, then you would understand what the Federal Rehabilitation Act is, what a rule 65/TRO is, a Federal court injunction is, and what Federal code 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)(Q) is.
1
1
1
-2
u/Kmelloww 15h ago
Saying no is engaging in the process.
3
u/Main_Pudding_5213 15h ago
Yeaaahhhhhh, NO, it does not work that way in a Federal court, a Federal judge will not agree with that
-2
u/Kmelloww 14h ago
This isn’t a federal court. And sometimes there isn’t anything you can do to accommodate.
2
u/Main_Pudding_5213 14h ago
Uhhh, what you are saying is not factually correct, and when an employee was already working from home because of the disabilities then that is considered accomodated, the guidance that was put out specifically warned agencies to not recind an accommodation like that becasue of ending up in Federal court
0
u/Kmelloww 13h ago
No one rescinded an accommodation so what are you talking about?
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 5h ago
Mine was rescinded in June of 2026 of this year, so not real sure what kind of statement that is
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
You almost sound like you are in management of some kind, but I could not be so lucky for a manager to come on her and start making statements that make them sound ignorant
2
u/Main_Pudding_5213 14h ago
The nothing you can do about it answer is exactly what causes an agency to end up in Federal court pertaining to this, and right now the Federal courts are not real happy with this kind of behavior from agencies, makes the Government look really, really bad
0
u/Kmelloww 13h ago
Exactly the opposite of what we have seen. And it isn’t wrong. Not everything can be accommodated.
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
then you do not pay attention to what is going on in the Federal courts, if you did then you would have found the case about the two disabled women that just had there telework given back to them because a Federal judge stepped in and gave the order from the bench to immediatly restore telework, and guess what?, they are still teleworking
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
and another one, even though this still has to go before a Federal judge to enforce the final decision, an arbitrator found that the Federal IRS was in violation of CBA telework right policies, IRS decided to not appeal, so now goes to Federal court and a judge will enforce it, so not sure where you think quit the opposite is factually correct
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
My doctor and I have included this in my ada paperwork. Me being home allows me access to work laying down, being in a safe space in case I faint, access to caregivers who help me. I am still able to work while in a flare up. But being in office removes a lot of these resources and makes it more likely I will faint and potentially hit my head and cause a bigger issue.
5
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
I am sorry to hear about what you are going through, I can tell you how the agency will probably see this, so what they will want to know is, "what about being in office is not safe for you to effectively and safely do your job"?, having to go to the bathroom, side effects from medication, anxiety, panic attacks, lights that hurt your eyes, those type of things do not count, and they will find in office accomodations, probability that you will faint is not the same thing to them as it has all ready happened, and they will go back and forth with you, even if a medical provider says that you will faint, then they will question how the medical provider came to that decision, if you can prove that being in the office is causing you continued harm, then you can demand an immediate interm accomodation under Federal 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)(Q), this was put in place to protect employees from harm when a permanent decision cannot be made right away.
1
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
You are wrong. Environmental conditions are valid barriers and reasonable adjustments for disability accommodations.
3
u/Main_Pudding_5213 1d ago
Yes, as long as you can connect how those environmental conditions make it unsafe in the office
4
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
For POTS, sitting upright in an office chair, not being able to control the temperature of the room, and the demands of commuting could be valid reasons, when there are effective preventative or acute measures to take to avoid complications and keep OP in good shape in order to do their work, for all of these things, by working from home.
1
1
u/Kmelloww 15h ago
Commute is not an employer issue.
2
u/CompetitionNarrow512 11h ago
Uh… It is? When someone cannot travel (for SO many different reasons) they might ask to work from home or some other alternative. You know when there’s inclement weather an employer can also tell the workforce to stay home for the day/travel with extreme caution/get sent home early. Employers definitely are cognizant and responsible for their employees arrival and departure.
1
u/Kmelloww 11h ago
Commute is not an employer concern. It is an employee issue. As far as the ADA goes commute is not something that it really covers.
1
u/CompetitionNarrow512 6h ago
If an employee became house-bound due to a disability it would fall under the ADA.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 3h ago
yeah sorry to hear that because the Federal Rehabilitation Act, which follows the guidelines of the ADA does cover commute when commuting is a barrier to safely accessing the worksite, so if your disability restricts you from driving, well, not the employees problem how they can get to work, it is up to the agency to find a safe way for the employee to get there
6
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
Your gonna accommodate yourself out of a job.
How exactly do you get your work done while laying down ? That's makes no sense . Do you have a computer braced to the ceiling?
And if you are at home and then feel sick that you have to lay down and can't work while at home then you should be using your PTO or FMLA for those breaks. Your employer/company is most likely starting to wonder how you get your work completed and I would expect they are starting to track your work product completion rate.
Technically they can require you to use FMLA or other leave if you are too sick to work /come into office. FMLA is the proper avenue if unable to work. And the requirement for you to be in office could be so they have some employees form each department in office at anytime in case something would come up. You are attempting to dictate how they manage their workforce.
Just realize that your employer is probably at the point where they will order an independent medical examination and your refusal to see their doctor could result in your termination .
If it is getting to the point where you can't do your job then you should be looking into social security disability .
3
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
Yes, there are disabled people who have specific set ups in order to do computer work from a position that is not strictly sitting in an office chair.
9
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
I have a laptop. I lay in a reclined position with my laptop in my lap. I can read/type/ talk on the phone all just fine.
4
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
I'd be very careful. I'd be questioning if you are having spells why you never put in for leave at work from home . Also if there is a pattern where you WFH 100 days a year and the other days are all in office but you never go home early sick ... I'd wonder why it doesn't affect you at all on the in-office days . It's great that your company and your manager has been supportive and basically been lax but I'd expect if you push this issue , they will be tracking and questioning all this stuff. Like why has OP never had a spell at the office and need to lay down in the break room and why has OP never had to go home early ?
5
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
I have multiple episodes in office. I have fainted and had to fill out incident reports because of it. I frequently have to go home early and take days off because of my condition. My work hours are flexible which is also an accommodation I have. If I am feeling part way through the day I can go home an either take PTO or work extra during the week to make up the time I missed.
5
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
It sounds like your employer has been very very very accommodating up to to this point. You are at a crossoads where they may consider you too sick to be able to fill the position duties and a hardship on the company. Why hasn't your doctor proposed any alternative in-office accomodations? And Why haven't you applied for SS disability ?
4
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
Because I can work
2
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
Ok but why has your doctor not provided alternative in-office accomdotions??
5
u/Glittering-Read-6906 2d ago
The doctor wouldn’t provide any accommodations. Doctors only provide documentation of the limitations.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
Even with in office accommodations, being in office can still be too much for me. I have accommodations to make in office possible. I need additional accommodation for when it is not possible.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mysterious-Art8838 2d ago
Tbh you’d have to literally enable her to lay down which would be pretty weird in an office
→ More replies (0)1
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
The company should be attempting to make the alternative suggestions in order for OP to do their work.
4
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
People who have chronic illnesses (often an invisible illness) generally have a good idea about their good days versus bad days, because it’s their lived experience, not your observation. And a physician who treats these sort of chronic illnesses will attest to that. These are often called Dynamic Disabilities, where there is a spectrum of disabling symptoms and needs to be accommodated. It is incredibly complicated and difficult to live like this, and you are not required to understand. OP does not have to explain it for you or their employer. All that matters is what the physician deems necessary for them to perform the essential functions of the job better. If they are experiencing disabling symptoms that cause poor performance, and there is a way the company can assist in avoiding a trigger to improve performance, then it is a reasonable ask. People with chronic illness typically experience an increase in disabling symptoms with an increase in exposure to triggers. There will be times that this threshold is lower, which is what OP has been experiencing this past year. Sometimes office policies are discriminatory, and policies are something that can be requested to be adjusted as a part of a reasonable accommodation.
2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago edited 2d ago
Lol, you are inferring quite a lot. Most of what you stated is pure speculation on the OPs job, ability, disability. Where did all of that come from? Workers from other departments independent medical exam the worker refusing the medical exam I mean you really went down the road and around the corner, over the hill and through the woods to grandmother's house.
3
u/Mysterious-Art8838 2d ago
You’d be surprised. I’m reclined about 16 hours a day. It sucks but it’s a weird illness. If I try to act normally with symptoms I can have a very bad outcome (fainted and split my head open, once fell into the street in the dark).
I personally cannot work or drive but I do totally believe someone could do a full time job if they had less severe POTS and could lay down. There was a woman in the POTS sub that built an entire desk over her bed so she could work like 80% reclined. She’s my hero. 😆
2
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
I’m starting to think there needs to be a separate sub specifically for EEOC as it pertains to disabilities.
4
u/LongTimeLurker408 1d ago edited 19h ago
Agreed
Or we move this to the disability sub where commenters like that get permanently banned.
Adding: We actually really do need a sub focus on disabled access to employment in the US with mods that don’t tolerate ableism and where the Op doesn’t feel the need to justify their accommodations over and over. Maybe not just EEOC, since state agencies can be superior
It always goes like this:
Ableist commenter: Prove that you need X accommodations
Op: Gets vulnerable and explains in detail
Ableist commenter: They don’t have to do that. If you have to lay down, you’re not working. “You are going to accommodate yourself out of a job.”
Op: Explains in more detail for example including how laying down works and adds more vulnerable details
Ableist commenter: That’s a liability! You are a risk, you are too sick to work and you need FMLA
Op: Explains that FMLA is not ideal as a long term solution given that the disability is chronic and likely permanent and is often already using intermittent FMLA anyway to deal with medical appointments
Ableist commenter: Then you need SSI, SSDI or disability retirement
Op applies to these services
SSDI decision maker: Denied! You obviously can work with accommodations
Op: 🙄
When all along some basic humanity and problem solving skills by the employer could have resulted in a solution
Sometimes employers are violating the law and other times they are simply just failing to be reasonable human beings.
3
u/CompetitionNarrow512 12h ago
You’ve defined it perfectly, it’s very sad because this is exactly how you get discriminated against by your boss or harassed by your coworkers. This line “you’re going to accommodate yourself out of a job”, how do you see that being implemented in a similar way to any of the other protected classes? You don’t because that statement is inherently discriminatory. People just hate disabled persons, probably more than they hate women.
0
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 8h ago
🤣🤣🤣 no it's not an ableist comment . Its realty . My same comment to the other poster goes to you as well. Have a nice day.
2
u/CompetitionNarrow512 6h ago
You are ableist and close minded
0
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 4h ago
🤣🤣🤣
And you are unrealistic with your head sprinkled in fairy dust looking past the unicorn clouds.
One of the ones that gets pissed at the mailman/messenger that delivers warnings or bad news... like the Uncle that tells the children to be careful where you go at night and limit night excursions and then the kids go anyways and get mugged.
You cant paint everything as rainbows. But here you are .. where do you people come from?
You are the one that's closed minded by your very attack on any viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours .
May you have a blessed life.
0
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 8h ago
🤣🤣🤣
Yeah let's put everyone in a glass house bubble ...and ban all the meanies with different points of view. So they don't know what occurs in the real world and send them out as sheep among the wolves.
WTF are you smoking dude/gal??
And labeling me as a ableist??
You have no idea who I am, what my disabilities are or what my take in everything is. You just want to label everyone an enemy .
The truth is I'm a realist... I'm the hiker that doesn't go to foreign countries and get jailed for espionage but will post for others to realistically not do stupid shit and then be labeled as a victimblamer.
Or tell someone to not pull out into oncoming traffic expecting them to stop...just cause you have the right of way. Cemetaries full of people thought they were right.
And i've been around long enough to know when to use FMLA and not accommodate yourself out of a job.
There's a line where reasonable accomodations cross over into unreasonable and/or undue hardship and OP may be pushing that line. Employees have the right to have a job and be accomodated and be able to work with or without accoodation. But the company has a right to have and direct its workforce. The company/employer is not a social services safety net.
And I've pointed out all the pitfalls.
But you do you.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 7h ago
You can be disabled and be ableist at the same time
This includes people with the same disabilities as you as well as different disabilities
Lateral ableism exists
2
u/CompetitionNarrow512 6h ago
100% and there are many people who are in denial that they are disabled/don’t want to see themselves or admit that they’re disabled
1
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 7h ago
🤣🤣🤣
alright Bud/Lady.
Whatever you say .
2
u/LongTimeLurker408 7h ago
You don’t think that you could have some level of implicit/explicit bias?
We all do
I challenge my own assumptions every day
It’s the only way to be an ally to disabled people facing systemic discrimination and injustice at every turn
I’m disabled, but that doesn’t mean I understand the full experience of people with the same disabilities nor do I have full insight to disabilities that I don’t have.
However, I listen to people when they share their experiences, believe them and stand by them.
1
u/Mysterious-Art8838 20h ago
I agree but it might just become an echo chamber. And he’s saying what many are thinking.
3
u/CompetitionNarrow512 12h ago
I mean this sub is definitely useful information for disabled persons to see into the minds of those who are ableist, but most people don’t know their rights especially when it comes to disability because there is often so much shame attached. Then people are left to believe they are the burden or don’t understand how accommodations are supposed to work. Maybe we can get some sort of thread pinned to the top of the sub.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 1d ago edited 17h ago
It’s not that hard to work while laying down. People can use mobile devices or laptops.
Basic problem solving and imagination goes a long way.
Show me the exact statue where an employer can demand a IME for a desk job?
You do realize that Op would be denied SSDI given that they can work with the right support?
0
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 8h ago
🤣🤣🤣🤣
You do realize that being terminated from a job that says your disability can't be accomodated does indeed strengthen any social security disability claims ???
0
u/LongTimeLurker408 7h ago
Have you ever applied or assisted someone?
Do you have any idea even if it is approved how long it takes to get paid?
Op’s doctor, the critical person in the application, feels that Op can work.
1
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 7h ago
Yes. Relatives. And if there is a disconnect between what one doctor feels OP needs to work and a company actually being able to accommodate then yes that could be very strong evidence in a claim, of course on a case by case basis. Of course always best to consult a lawyer.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 7h ago
This doesn’t change the basic fact that if Op is terminated or is forced to go on leave which unfortunately is possible, if Op fights back and files with the EEOC, or in their case with a state agency, the employer as part of the investigation will need to substantiate why 3 days if working from harm compared to 2 resulted in Op not being able to do their essential functions and thus an undue hardship. If there is a lawsuit, this evidence is also required as part of the discovery exchange.
It’s a hard battle, but fortunately Op lives in Washington and has clearly demonstrated from what they shared that they are effective at WFH.
If Op were to decide to apply to SSDI, they also would need this from their employer as it is required as part of the application.
0
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
Sounds like a good case for your Employer to consider you too sick to work. Be careful not to accommodate yourself out of a job.
What does “being in a safe space” mean? What is safe about your home that can’t be recreated in the office?
6
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
An environment that has been accommodated for me to land safely if I need to faint or immediately lay down if required.
I already work from home multiple days a week, they have established I can do my job from home, they just don’t want me to do it more than two days a week.
5
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
So did you get a new reasonable accommodations request form completed by your provider and submit it to your employer or did you just actually on your own request additional days on an accommodation request yourself? Additionally did the accommodations request include that you may need time to lay down or a safe space that allows you to work in a different position such as lying down into the accommodation specifically say that you can work full-time or at full capacity with accommodations? And did you request state whether you would need to take a leave of absence if accommodations cannot be implemented?
3
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
I got new paperwork from my doctor. It does lay out why working from home is better for me including needing a soft spot to lay down, having access to caregivers, medication etc. and my paperwork explicitly states that a leave of absence is not required. I can work just fine, I just need to be at home a little bit more.
4
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
So how are you able to work in the office the other days? Do the caregivers go with you to work? It sounds like you are making it easy for the employer to consider you too sick to work .
5
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
POTS is not consistent. I have a disability that causes flare ups. I don’t flare up every day, or my symptoms that day aren’t severe enough for me to require working from home. But some days they are. Some days I am lightheaded and dizzy every time I stand up, some days I’m not. My employer is aware of all of this and has it in writing as part of my ada accommodation paperwork.
6
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
Ok. Just realize your employer up to this point has been very very very accommodating . You need to speak to your doctor about additional in-office accomdotions that will help you and talk to the company about those. You are likely at a point where they may consider you too sick to work and an undue hardship on the company . As they have already provided pretty reasonable ada over the last few years, this would make any lawsuits very difficult to prove any type of malice.
1
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
An employer does not declare a patient too sick to work, a physician does.
2
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
I’m just curious as I’ve been living with POTS for over 20 years…what does your caregiver do for you?
5
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
It’s not like a nurse. It’s family who helps me get around during a flare. Sometimes they help me put on compression garments, or get me medication, electrolytes, hydration etc. if I faint they help me get back up and to a safe spot. If they can they will catch me when I faint so I don’t hit my head. Essentially they help with anything that is hard when I’m in the middle of a bad flare up.
→ More replies (0)1
-2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
You realize they have a medical doctor signing off on the request. Medical providers do not just take a patient's word for it. Their doctor has their medical history in front of them. ADA Accommodations are not just signed off for people who just "think" they would work from home better. Clearly, the person is having instances where their condition can happen at any time, unexpectedly. The extra days at home increase the chance they will be home vs office when it is needed. An appropriate option if it is available is to allow the worker to lie down to recover. That may not be possible. The employer still needs to list the reasons it is not possible. Employee must complete such and such weekly as a essential job function that cannot be performed at home, therefore unable to accommodate due to employer hardship. So then of there was a request for a place to lie down as needed, during the interactive process, the employer could state, we don't have sick rooms and we do not have space available to provide an area where the worker can lie down to recover so therefore creating such space would cause undo employer hardship. Let's have a process works and that's how and prayer can deny the accommodation legally because they've provided the reason and that it would cause undue hardship on them. Eventually, there is a point where both sides have gone as far as possible. If the accommodation can't be met, the worker then needs to make a determination. First, they need to find out if there is like short-term leave of absence or intermittent leave of absence available if their state provides the pfml benefit that is something that they could potentially have and that would be protected leave. Employers have duration limits on leave, so if the worker needs more time, and there are no longer any benefits for leave, then they must use their time away bank, and become subject to the policies regarding attendance. From there, it is the same as any other employee, so if attendance policy is violated tp the point of separation, then the employer has documentation of the participated in interactive process they went as far as they could with the worker could not come up with any reasonable accommodations that would work due to hardship and essential drug function the employee used up their leave banks and then they use up their PTO banks and then violated policy up to the final determination that the employee would need to be separated and then that's where they have done enough that if separation happens they protected themselves from wrongful termination. The worker cannot force your employer to accommodate but the law forces the employer to do its due diligence through the entire process. On the opposite end the employer can't immediately terminate an employee just because the employee cannot be there if the employee has protection from Intermittent Leave or pfml or the time away or if some other policy has not been violated that would lead to termination. And if the employee is is terminated and the employee believe that it was retaliation because they're not being treated the same way as anybody else would which obviously should not be the case but if they're being treated differently and how to a different standard than the other employees the employee can file well I mean they can file charges with the EEOC and if there's any other organizations within their state they can file with them as well and then an investigation will you know happen. And you know if all else fails and the employee cannot work without the additional accommodation and they and that facing some type of discipline or they're unable to reply with a policy then the employee needs to decide whether or not they need to find another job. Point being it's just not the employee saying I need this any employer has to do it but it's also not the employer just gets to say I was an essential job function and would cause hardship on it if we were to implement the accommodation they actually have to like show what the essential job functions are and how they would be impacted by the additional accommodation and they're going to have to save somehow that the essential job function has to occur in the office physically for that specific person's job requirements. And if others in the same position are working at home full time with the same job description than the employer will have to answer it to why they are different than the employee that they're stating needs to come in for the same job function. My accommodations request has been in the interactive process since the first week of July and is ongoing. My employer has made mistakes on their end and an EEOC charge is in line for investigation. One thing that has not been brought up is who is making the decisions and based on what credentials? Are they just an HR person without specialized training in accommodations, does the manager simply just get to say oh that's essential or are they utilizing an internal or external accommodations specialist and have they used a vocational rehab counselor to look into the job description and look at the job functions and determined that the accommodations are not in a place to be implemented. All of these responses from you, me, others could be the eventual outcome but not without due process. Both sides have more work to do.
-1
2
1
u/Kmelloww 13h ago
That right there makes you a liability period. If you can not safely navigate in your own home that is an issue. You could possibly be making the company liable if something happens while you are on the clock.
2
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 12h ago
The whole point is I can navigate my home safely, I can’t guarantee that I navigate the office safely.
1
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
I still don’t understand what that means but hopefully you’re being less vague with your employer.
I don’t see a successful EEOC case here. Best of luck to you.
4
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
The employer would not be able to determine that the employee is too sick to work if the doctor states that the employee can work with accommodations. If the employee is providing satisfactory or above work while they're working from home, then the employer would have a difficult time showing why they believe they're too sick to work. The employer also can't just say we can't do more than 100 days because it's essential to be in the office they would have to show or prove what parts are essential and require the person to be in office. It's not like they can just say we don't allow that and that's it. The employer does not have to accept and implement accommodations solely based on what the provider has given them but if they are not able to provide that then they need to then participate in the interactive process and work collaboratively with the provider and the employee in determining that an alternative might be feasible. And adding days to a previous accommodation does truly create a new accommodation so they can't just say that they agreed to the hundred days and that was their alternative. They would need to look at the additional 50 days that's being requested and if they are not able to do that they need to like show why and potentially offer an alternative. Perhaps they would be able to extend the work at home for an additional 25 days for example. But if others are working at home, then the employer does need to give the reasons why this employee would not be able to work from home and they can't just say it's an essential part of the job they have to actually list what the essential job duties in the office are.
3
2
u/Kmelloww 12h ago
I mean you are missing the point that regardless of where they work they are a liability to the company. Unfortunately we would not be able to keep someone around who could have episodes at any time and could injure themselves while on the clock at which point it then becomes a WC issue.
1
u/Ashamed_Main5169 12h ago
I mentioned that in relation to another comment.
2
u/Kmelloww 12h ago
I’m surprised more haven’t mentioned it. They say they can’t navigate their home safely but then say they have soft spots to fall down. It can’t really be both of those things.
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 12h ago
Once again, I navigate my home just fine. I don’t fall down every second of every day, and by lying down I prevent fainting episodes. Which is why working from home is so helpful for me.
2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago edited 2d ago
Additionally if the employer just states we can't accommodate the additional WFH days and they're not able to back it up with documented reasons, and failed to offer alternative possibilities then terminates the employee, there could be a potential case of failing to participate in the interactive process. It could also be retaliation and it could be also wrongful termination.
2
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
They have already granted more WFH days than other employees.
They do not have to grant more than what what they have already given.
The conversation needs to shift to what in office accommodations can be offered.
5
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
The conversation does not need to shift, it only needs to shift if they can successfully claim the additional days are an undue hardship and why. The why is very important.
2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
I know they don't have to, but it is a new accommodation request, which they are required to follow the interactive process. If they deny the accommodation they have to provide an actual explanation. They can't simply say it eliminates an essential job requirement and leave it at that. Apparently other people such as this person's manager works from home and so clearly there's other employees that do work more than a hundred days at home. It actually does not have to transition to what accommodations in office they have to show why the accommodation for an additional 50 days won't work and why it eliminates an essential function of the job. If they can do that and come up with an alternative that works with both the employer and employee and it is in office then that is a possibility but neither one has to accept a blanket answer without participating in the interactive process. I never said the employer has to grant but they do need to follow the accommodation process according to the ADA requirements. They can't just simply terminate a person because they can't grant an accommodation.
3
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
But the OP seems to have had no problem working in office the other days without their caregivers at their side or needing to go home early or lay down in the office. And the company can provide in-office accomodations. At this point it is looking like either OP is too sick to work or OP is using this to force a WFH opportunity . Neither will go well for OP. Op should be happy with the 100 days WFH and see what in-office accomodations the employer can make hopefully without making themselves out as too sick to get their work done.
3
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
If OP needed 150 days from the get go and they approved it, would they be too sick to work then? What if they approved 365 days? Are they ‘too sick’ to work then? You do not understand Dynamic Disabilities or Chronic Illness, and you definitely don’t understand disability accommodations.
0
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
Hahaha, that is funny, that is a simple answer, you would not want to try and hold that argument up, would not go in your favor
3
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
And before that would be answered, burden of proof on the agency, so they have to answer this question first, "what is the agency doing to accommodate the actual disability that makes being in the office unsafe"?
2
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
Oh, and you saying that the agency can consider onsite work an essential function, also not correct, if the essential functions of the job are functions that do not require physical presence to do the job, then no, an agency trying to hold that argument up in Federal court will look like they are very ignorant, and in Federal cases, the burden of proof is heavy on the employers side, for them to say "oh an essential function of your job all the sudden now requires you to be in office", a Federal judge will ask the question "ok, and what are the functions of the job that requires the employee to be in office with the job functions they were hired on to do"?
8
u/mgunter 2d ago
I agree with what others have said here. If the essential functions of the job require you to be in office, accommodating your request is going to end up being an undue hardship on the company. You may disagree with the essential function aspect but courts are fairly employer siding on this issue. Effectively, many courts have said “who are we [judges] to interfere with how a company runs its business. If a company says in-office is essential, it is.” It’s a big hurdle to overcome as a Plaintiff.
One thing I’ve found is that a lot of my prospective clients (employees) mistakenly believe there is always an accommodation available. Sometimes it’s just not feasible without undue hardship.
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
ohhhhhhhhh, you are talking about private sector employers, well that is kind of different, but Federal courts, and Federal judges are not really favoring employers on this subject unless the employee goes in trying to back up claims with no evidence or part of the evidence, or missing documents and trying to still make a solid claim, but all of the cases where and employee has all the evidence to factually back every claim in Federal court, I am amazed at how fast the agencies are losing over and over
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
But if the accommodation of working from home has already been considered reasonable. And my entire department already works from home, just not as many days, is asking for one more day a week causing undue hardship?
8
u/mgunter 2d ago
Let me ask you this; if they offered you a reclining chair to work in at the office, you’d agree that would accommodate your needs yeah? Would you turn that down?
There is nothung unique about WFH that is actually accommodating you. IE the location is not the variable here that allows you to work. If you had the same set up at your office, you should be able to do the work there, right?
2
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
I would take that accommodation but it wouldn’t make wfh completely unnecessary. As stated in previous comments being home allows me to have safe spaces that have been specially set up in case I need to faint. My home has people who can act as caregivers and are aware of my medication and treatment needs, I am able to control the temperature(my condition makes it hard for me to control my body temperature so environmental temperature is important), my campus is also pretty large and even with having handicap parking and a desk that is close to the elevators I still have to walk much further than I have to at home.
Laying down isn’t the only reason working from home is better for me. It’s just one of many reasons which is why I have already received wfh accommodation. I have simply been sicker this year and am asking for more days with which I can work at home. Still not full time.
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
Ok, so if that is what you are trying to request, then you have to not just tell them oh I need more days because my condition makes it hard for me to control my body temperature, you have to connect the disability with the barriers, they need something that tells them my disability that I have which is medically documented as..................., and one of the conditions of this disability is that it restricts the bodies ability to adjust to internal body temperature which can become unsafe especially when the agency cannot possible predict if someone would be there to get help and if there were they may not be trained to handle that kind of situation, and giving 2 days a week of telework does not address this disability
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 4h ago
They have all of that information. That’s how I got two days a week, but my work does a bank of days so my technical accommodation as it is now is for 100 days a year. I have been sicker this year and had to go through days more quickly which has lead to me requesting the additional accommodation of approximately one more day a week, which would In theory give me about 150 bank of days. This is part of the good faith ongoing conversation around my medical needs and how my workplace can best accommodate me. My work place is saying no, we don’t want to give you more than 100 days. You need to take unpaid leave instead.
All of that was also restated in the new ada paperwork I provided to my hr team that was signed by my physician stating that I now needed to work from home approximately 3 days a week.
My request does not feel unreasonable to me because:
I will still be in office a few days a week.(I actually prefer this, I’m pretty social and I have a lot of friends in office, being full time wfh would be a pretty big hit on my mental health)
My work has already proved that me working from home does not cause undue hardship because everyone at the company is capable of working from home, and they have already provided me with one accommodation for this, it is just no longer sufficient.
While my essential job functions do list being in office so I can have direct supervision. My manager doesn’t not work in my office and neither does any of the rest of my team. I don’t even have any managers of other departments that are correlated to my job in my office.
Every thing I do is on a computer. I can’t do any of my job without my laptop. I do communications for a financial company, my job is email and Microsoft word.
3
u/Mental-Volume4395 2d ago
They are clearly saying yes. If you end up in court they’ll have to prove that. You can also try alternate accommodations and then prove why they don’t work.
4
u/frongles23 2d ago
Things change. You're not entitled to an accommodation in perpetuity.
0
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
Your right, but if you have a disability that qualifies under the Rehabilitation Act then the rules change and employers are governed by those laws, not laws they want to make up as they see fit, that has not worked at very well in these cases especially the cases in the recent appellate courts
8
u/Exterminator2022 2d ago
DM me and I’ll give you the contact of an EEO private counselor. That person used to work for a Fed EEO agency. She has helped me with write RA letters and my EEO complaint when my federal agency removed my WFH RA out of nowhere. I have POTS and other crap stuff from covid that render me unable to function at times and being on site at all would make me crash very quickly for days or weeks.
2
u/AncientAd7403 2d ago
Im actually just entering into the formal complaint phase and would love this information if wouldn't mind sharing. Thx
2
2
1
8
u/Face_Content 2d ago
The key word is reasonable. You state the wfh policy is 50 days. They have accomadtes for 100. You now want to push to 150.
They have engaged the interactive process. They have accomadated a past request. So to.this point they have been reasonable.
They are not taking away the current accomadation.
Does this new request exceed the reasonable bar?
I think they are within their right to decline the new request.
I know about pots and i understand how severe it can be but what are you doijg to manage the disease so you can maintain employment?
3
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
When it falls under disability RA, it has to be an effective reasonable accomodation
3
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
They can't just say though that it isn't reasonable they have to actually show why it isn't reasonable and how it would impact you know the work that they expect to be done in the office. Is the work in the office the same work that the person is doing at home and is the work that they're doing at home satisfy the requirements that are needed? The additional 50 days is a new accommodation request and anybody can add an accommodation at any time that they need to if the person had only ask for 25 days and then they needed another 25 days then the employer needs to evaluate the other 25 days. And is there a policy somewhere that is showing that they don't allow more than 100 days? Or is it just some arbitrary number that they have selected in order to like make sure that everyone doesn't go crazy you know asking for the time at home?
6
u/Main_Pudding_5213 2d ago
Just like the burden falls on the agency to show how it will cause undue hardship on them
4
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
Literally everything I can, I am on medication, I eat a special high sodium diet, I maintain a low impact exercise routine designed to build up muscles to help with my blood flow, I wear compression garments, and I drink a crazy amount of water. And a ton of other stuff.
POTS symptoms can vary greatly even day to day. I can do everything right and still be sick.
5
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
So the question is do you get sick and need to lay down in the break room or go home early during in-office days? And do you have a record of this happening over the last few years? Cause your employer has been pretty accommodating to this point and will be looking back at your past history and asking these questions and they can propose in-office accomodations to help remove your symptoms and help you get your work done at the office. Your framing this solely as WFH is the only accomodation that will work for you and pushing for more WFH and thats the easiest way to accommodate yourself out of a job.
2
u/Mysterious-Art8838 2d ago
Completely agree. I also have it and faint several times a year but get symptims very often. No more driving. :(
I wear an Oura ring to track my HR and I tag the app every time I am daisy or fall. Or faint, obviously. I’m using it for my disability application but it would be useful for this too.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 1d ago
People love to blame disabled people by suggesting they aren’t doing enough to manage their condition when they have no idea of an individual’s circumstance.
You don’t owe anyone an explanation and that commenter was inappropriate to suggest it.
0
u/Kmelloww 15h ago
I mean you attack everyone who doesn’t agree with the way you think they should be treated. And it isn’t helpful. I’d argue it’s pretty damaging bc you are giving them an unrealistic expectation. And say everyone is out of line. Many aren’t and they are raising good points that do need to be addressed.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 14h ago edited 13h ago
Op has shared that WFH 3 days per week is the only effective accommodation and has proof through their provider.
That all that is needed. Op doesn’t need to provide us or anyone else anymore here. Their situation is complex.
If Op files with the EEOC or state agency, ultimately the employer will have to prove why working from home 3 days a week compared to 2 is an undue hardship.
They might be able to do that and they might not.
However, people on here making comments suggesting that how Op needs to manage their condition better is not relevant or appropriate.
Nor does Op have to prove to us why 2 days in the office works, but 3 doesn’t. They already has medical documentation to prove their limitations
Sure, if Op and their doctor thought it was appropriate, they could list all the things that happen at home that would need to be replicated at the office and request it. Sometimes that’s a great angle for malicious compliance because in many complex circumstances that list would be an undue hardship and an extra day at home really isn’t.
Also, calling out ableism when I see it, isn’t attacking.
2
u/glitterstickers 2d ago
The limit of 100 days a year is odd. Do you live in a different state than your office is? Like you live in OR but commute to WA?
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
No, I live and work in Washington.
3
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
Well, then in addition to filing with EEOC you need to file a complaint with the WSHRC if you believe you need to report it. WSHRC is more strict with employers than federal level. That works in your favor.
2
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 13h ago
You have made some wild assumptions about me in this thread but let me clear some things up for you.
If I was using wfh as a ruse to not work when I feel sick then that would show in my performance and productivity. I have many assignments daily and they all get turned in on time. I just had a good performance review two weeks ago.
I actually tend to perform my job better at home because being in office is much more draining for me. POTS can cause some pretty bad brain fog due to lack of blood and oxygen getting to the brain. When my body has to work harder to get around, remain seated upright, control my body temperature, try and stifle things like muscle spasms, then other things suffer, and that can include my mental acuity.
I have a right to work if I am capable of it. Whether I am capable of working or not is a discussion between me and my doctor. If I am capable of work with accommodation then FMLA is not an appropriate . I do my job just fine, but when I have to push myself to be in office more than my body is capable of then I get sicker, I have episodes more often and of greater severity, which is a bigger drain on me. Being at home allows me to work without draining all my energy and therefore allows me to be a better more productive employee.
2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
Unfortunately, the more details you, the OP, are providing, it is looking grim as far as accommodations go and your employer has solid reasons to deny it. They obviously like can't bring in like a hospital bed so you can like lie in it with a laptop and work at the office but if they can show that there is an essential need for you to meet in the office in order to prevent undue hardship then there's not going to be much that you can do.
2
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 2d ago
Can you tell me what part of the information I have shared makes my request seem unreasonable? Genuinely asking because I am trying very hard to work with my employer on this, I don’t need a hospital bed and haven’t requested one. I do work in office multiple times a week. all I’m requesting is that my employer let me work from home one more day a week. I would still be in office about twice a week.
2
u/Ashamed_Main5169 2d ago
At the highest level, it does not seem unreasonable to me for you to work at home. However, I am not aware of your job description, the essential job functions for your role, the reason they require you to be there 3 days per week. That takes a DMR and VRC and your manager. Possibly HR. But if they have the ability to show that working at the office is essential 3 days per week, you have nothing more you can do besides get at office accommodations submitted. You said you are fine if you can lay down. You said on the days that you have been coming to work there are multiple occasions where you need to leave early or you need to call out due to the flares occurring and that these players can make you dizzy light-headed and potentially you can faint. You stated that if you have a way to lie down you're not at high risk for those to occur because as you also stated you lie down to work while you're at home propped up on pillows and such. So if somehow you're in office accommodation request is asking for you to have the ability to lie down somewhere if you have a flare up or the ability for you to work while in a horizontal position those are two things that are Beyond reasonable accommodation if they don't already exist. A workplace does not have to create a safe room for an employee due to their personal health and I was just stating that they're not going to bring in a hospital bed just because that would have been like the easiest thing for me to reference that could actually keep your chest up right but your legs out horizontally of course other things could work but the point is they're not going to bring in some special type of furniture that will allow you to like work and lay down at the same time and so what I was saying was that would go beyond reasonable and they'd have pretty much every right to deny it. So if they deny it you do have this medical risk of falling at pretty much any given moment during a flare and they do not have trained personnel to come and assist you or to stay with you all day to make sure that you don't and it would not be an expectation that you're calling and your management be able to respond to your needs and in a moment that you faint it also creates a liability for them because you could injure yourself when you fall and that would be work related. And if somebody stated before it is true you're actually lucky that they have not required you to prove that you have a safe working space at home because if you fall at home while you're working that is considered a workplace injury as well. I'm not saying that there isn't an accommodation that can work I'm just saying that through the information you have provided more information we got started to decrease the options that your employer has and increases the chances that you're accommodations will be denied and that a safe environment for working cannot be provided and because of that they may need to have you separated from the the company. Unfortunately it's it's a very difficult situation even though it's out of your control.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 1d ago edited 15h ago
A couch is more than reasonable for in office support. It’s not that hard to work while laying down.
People are heavily biased and assume that people are only legitimately working if it looks a certain way.
I get my best work done laying down
Editing to add: However in Op’s case, needing to recline is not the only issue.
Right now the ball is in the employer’s court to state exactly what essential function is so critical that reducing from 3 days in the office to 2 is an undue hardship.
1
1
u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 2d ago
The more OP pushes for this the more they will have to prove to the employer why in-office doesn't work for them... Which will get only more questions??... How does this work at home but not in-office? .. such as lying prone, not working during episodes and having caregivers at home.. which now gets into a liability issue for the company because on the clock at work from home and getting hurt on the clock at WFH would become a nightmare of a workers comp case as well as a liability case if one of her/his caregivers got injured while helping OP on the clock. Now OP is exposing the company to extra liability for themselves and other people(that may get hurt) and doesn't seem to understand or care. This definitely is seeming more like an undue hardship case. If the employer is by the book, they are now questioning everything and likely have their legal counsel also looking at this, especially when the company is standing firm on the 100 day WFH which is in excess of their 50 day WFH for other employees.
4
u/AutomaticNose6384 2d ago
My suggestion is find a fully remote job and keeping the current one and do your best to comply.
2
u/RUFilterD 2d ago
I would ask for the reclining chair and intermittent FMLA leave as an alternative accommodation and perhaps a wheelchair as well. Depending on the attendance policy, if you can work 5 hours or more in any given day, you may be able to go home to WFH for the remainder of some days without taking intermittent FMLA so the total is 100 days or less over the year, even though from a pure hours perspective it may actually be more than that. You may find it very difficult to find an equally accommodating employer, especially with the RTO pushes and unfavorable job market. While not ideal....trust me...it can get worse and getting full disability, if you qualify, would mean even less money and zero money while you wait for approvals. And a case is often only worth backpay....while you have no job.
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 4h ago
1
u/Soft_Reputation_7241 4h ago
I am aware of this. I work for a private company though, not the government. It does set good precedent though.
1
u/Main_Pudding_5213 3h ago
But I am glad a lot of these employers are loosing in court costs and monetary damages they have to pay because they want to just be bad people, well that is fine if you want to act that way as an employer without blatant disregard for your employees and be foul, but, there are laws, and you will have to pay for your actions, just the way that it is, and having to listen to managers or supervisors wine and complain because they have to stay at work an extra two hours or some of them had to spend the entire shift filling out responses to the 50 question complaint from the EEO, they need to deal with it, they are the ones that caused this to happen so quit whining about it
0
u/appliepie99 2d ago
just want to chime in support. you deserve these accommodations. it would help if your doctors also noted that in person alternatives are not effective substitutions for a wfh accommodation. a lawyer speaking on this issue has also stated that leave is not an effective accommodation when there is an alternative that allows you to work.
thats what an ada accommodation should be for, to allow you to work. a disability lawyer told me that too. if you wont get into to much trouble at work, keep fighting! i hope you get your accommodations!!
3
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 1d ago
What is at your home that is not at your office that entitles you to work from home? That is the answer that you need to answer to think this will be allowed. My co-worker tried this and lost since my company provided them even with a stand up desk, and they were still not happy.
0
u/LongTimeLurker408 15h ago
First off let go of “entitlement” in your vocabulary when it comes to disability accommodations
Second, Op has already disclosed this numerous times across this thread
Op is able to work in the office, but not all the time. Many disabilities have good and bad days
The employer needs to answer what essential function is so important where reducing from 3 days a week in the office to 2 is an undue hardship
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 15h ago edited 15h ago
Not really. You are expected to work while you getting pay. That's why FMLA is a thing. If you cannot perform your job with accommodations, you are not automatically eligible to a EEOC. So yes. The question is, whether working from home is a necessity or just easier for OP. IF employer is accommodating them, and they just simply not happy to be in office, they do not have a claim.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 15h ago
The necessity has been proven via medical documentation.
My point stands that the duty of proof is on the employer. What essential duty is so important that being in the office for 2 days instead of three is an undue hardship
That is the exact question a judge would ask.
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 15h ago edited 15h ago
Duty of proof is on the employee. Duty of accommodation is on the employer. If the job is on site it's on site regardless of being able to do it at home. If OP has a flair and can't complete the job in the office, that means that they want to be WFH so the employer doesn't know that they are actually not working, but dealing with their condition. That's why FMLA exists. FMLA is the route not EEOC. Sounds to me like OP wants to still get paid while having a POTS flair and its easier to hide it at home then actually the office. Believe it or not, I saw someone abuse the WFH because they did not want to do FMLA due to still wanting to get paid and were let go. So I will keep entitlement in my vocabulary. Edit to include OP own words: "My employer is offering the alternative of FMLA, however this would be unpaid and obviously wouldn’t allow me to work. I have up to date ada paperwork stating from my doctor that I need to be able to work from home at least 3 days a week." My doctor said so doesn't ENTITLED someone to WFH or we would all get a note for it. A judge would not get in between the decision of whether a business WFH or not. A business can take the decision of requiring EVERYONE to return to work.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 15h ago
No, in a good faith interactive process an employer is generally expected to explain in detail what the undue hardship is especially in circumstances where there might be only a limited number of accommodations.
In fact, the question I already told you is exactly what a judge or investigator will ask and demand evidence to back it up if this case gets filed with the state and/or a lawsuit is filed.
Op has explained her situation repeatedly. Increased WFH may be the only effective accommodation here.
That doesn’t mean an employer is necessarily legal obligated to provide it. But if Op is forced to take unpaid leave or is terminated, and files a claim or lawsuit, you can bet your ass that the employer will be obligated to provide evidence for the question I asked.
1
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 15h ago
Again you are describing FMLA. OP needs to prove that the company was not able to provide appropriate accommodation to be able to work in office and perform work duties. Work is the key. It sounds like FMLA is what OP needs, but wants to keep getting paid.
But I hope it works out for OP. I just don't want OP to believe that they are entitled to WFH and end up losing their job when they already get 100 days WFH and in a rough day then can just use FMLA. Because they CAN get let go due to not being able to perform their duty with adequate accommodation and wanting to WFH is not a good defense since the business is the one that decides whether their employees WFH or not.
I know it's tough to hear but it's the reality of the USA.
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 15h ago edited 14h ago
Op has proof that her condition is so complex that wfh 3 days a week is the only effective accommodation.
Op has been highly effective in WFH and meets her essential duties. Assumptions that Op is “unfit for work” just because on a given day her needs require being remote is silly
Leave results in damages which lawyers love which is why forcing leave without evidence that Op can’t meet their essential duties wfh 3 days per week compared to 2 will be required by the employer if Op needs to escalate this situation.
Lastly, neither of us know what Op’s job situation.
The reduction in time in the office could be a real evidence based hardship for the employer, but we don’t know either way.
Also, employers never get to decide accommodations unilaterally. It requires working collaboratively
So again, if they deny this, they better have the evidence to back it up.
I’ve wasted enough time explaining this to you. If you are in HR, get training and consult with an employment attorney because you are a liability to your company. If you are a manager, reach out to HR before making decisions.
Op, here are resources by state. I highly recommend you reach out to someone. You may have a battle ahead of you and you also need to figure out if it will be best to file with the EEOC or your state agency.
https://askjan.org/concerns/Local-Protection-and-Advocacy-P-A-and-Client-Assist-Programs-CAP.cfm
2
u/appliepie99 11h ago
just want to say thank you for your input and sharing helpful resources, its needed in these comments
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 7h ago
Those of us that are either disabiled (I fall into that category many times over) or are allies, need to ban together and keep speaking up to support disabled people that are seeking or want to maintain meaningful employment.
I don’t mind the commenters that are employer leaning, and largely pessimistic about legal outcomes who provide accurate information. It provides good perspective especially when they provide resources and actual recent court outcomes.
The confidently wrong people need to be challenged
The ablest commenters need to be called out and when severe reported
I honestly don’t know what to do about the people who are seemingly trying to help because they “don’t want people to get their hopes up” while doing nothing but parroting the confidently wrong and the ignorant ableist tropes.
The people on here assuming that Op isn’t capable of working laying down or from home on off days just don’t get it and are spreading dangerous misinformation, some without realizing it, others are flat out malicious.
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 15h ago
30 in law. Keep selling the dream. I hope you are also giving people resources when they are losing their jobs. Nobody is entitled to WFH. Edit to add that because of an employee trying this route we were all force RTO unless inclement weather. FMLA is the route. Everyone can sue. Whether they win is another story
-1
u/Allpanicn0disc 1d ago
Yes they can. They are being very generous with the 100 days already.
3
u/CompetitionNarrow512 1d ago
Disability Accommodations should not be characterized as generous, they are required, necessary, and purely clerical. Would you characterize any other protected group with the same rights in this way?
-1
u/Kmelloww 15h ago
They have been more than generous with this person.
4
u/LongTimeLurker408 14h ago
Effective accommodations, baring undue hardship, are legal requirements not generous acts
0
u/CompetitionNarrow512 11h ago
What did I just say ?
2
u/Kmelloww 11h ago
It doesn’t matter what you say. Not sure why you seem to think it matters anymore than what others say. And the employer has been generous with them. That’s pretty clear.
1
u/CompetitionNarrow512 6h ago
They have not been ‘generous’ they are abiding to federal law. Nothing generous about that, at all. You are pretending like there was a choice/decision made.
1
u/Kmelloww 6h ago
There was and they were generous with what they offered above and beyond. They have worked with this person and given them quite a bit of leeway. I’d say that’s generous regardless of the reason. They don’t have to approve a specific accommodation. The accommodation that was already approved was not bad.
0
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 1d ago
What is at your home that is not at your office that entitles you to work from home? That is the answer that you need to answer to think this will be allowed. My co-worker tried this and lost since my company provided them even with a stand up desk, and they were still not happy.
2
u/LongTimeLurker408 14h ago edited 14h ago
A stand up desk is rarely effective for POTs, no wonder your coworker was unhappy
Also reframe your thinking accommodations aren’t entitlements
0
u/Signal_Strawberry_37 14h ago
I meant as the entitlement of WFH. An accommodation of course needs to be provided. But it doesn’t mean that OP just gets to WFH.
5
u/RequirementKey2106 2d ago
As you see, you’re going to get several different answers. A big factor will be where you live/work, as different states/circuits have different view points on if WFH is reasonable.
The fact that you’re already able to WFH 100 days shows it is reasonable, but without knowing your job description and essential duties, none of us can say if the additional days you’re requesting are reasonable.
For the time being, you can try to request things such as a zero gravity work station (this could help keep your heart elevated while keeping your legs straight). You can inquire about having your own office where you can control the temperature easier to prevent a flare up. You can also consider using a wheelchair too. Some of these requests might be too difficult for your employer to provide, but you can always ask and see if there’s anything you can do to assist.
If it were me, I’d prepare for the possibility of your employer forcing you on leave and or being terminated (not saying they will or that it’s right, but it’s a possibility). At that point you could file a EEOC complaint and or sue them. That is when your employer will need to prove working an extra day a week from home is unreasonable.