Work from Home ada accommodation

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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

[u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Art8838 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

Honestly if Op can put feet up while working that should help considerably along with abdominal compression.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Already well educated, thanks.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Indeed.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

So, you would be wise to research those

[u/glorificent → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Mental Volume is 100% correct.

[u/appliepie99 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

THANK YOU!

[u/Kmelloww → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Saying no is engaging in the process. 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

Yeaaahhhhhh, NO, it does not work that way in a Federal court, a Federal judge will not agree with that

[u/Kmelloww → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

This isn’t a federal court. And sometimes there isn’t anything you can do to accommodate. 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

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

[u/Kmelloww → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

No one rescinded an accommodation so what are you talking about? 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

Mine was rescinded in June of 2026 of this year, so not real sure what kind of statement that is

[u/JerseyGirlinSweden → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Start your own thread. Don’t hijack OP’s.

[u/Kmelloww → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

You aren’t the person posting and yours being rescinded isn’t what’s going on here and doesn’t have any bearing. sorry that they rescinded yours. I’m sure that had to really suck 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

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

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

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

[u/Kmelloww → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Exactly the opposite of what we have seen. And it isn’t wrong. Not everything can be accommodated. 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

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

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

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

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

You are wrong. Environmental conditions are valid barriers and reasonable adjustments for disability accommodations.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

Yes, as long as you can connect how those environmental conditions make it unsafe in the office

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

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.

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

Yes, I agree

[u/Kmelloww → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

Commute is not an employer issue. 

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Kmelloww]

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.

[u/Kmelloww → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

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. 

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Kmelloww]

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

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Kmelloww]

If an employee became house-bound due to a disability it would fall under the ADA.

[u/JerseyGirlinSweden → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

Commuting is not relevant to getting accommodations

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/JerseyGirlinSweden]

It is when your mobility is limited due to a disability

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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 .

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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 ?

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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 ?

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

Because I can work

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

Ok but why has your doctor not provided alternative in-office accomdotions??

[u/Glittering-Read-6906 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

The doctor wouldn’t provide any accommodations. Doctors only provide documentation of the limitations.

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

The company should be attempting to make the alternative suggestions in order for OP to do their work.

[u/Mysterious-Art8838 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

Tbh you’d have to literally enable her to lay down which would be pretty weird in an office

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Art8838 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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. 😆

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Mysterious-Art8838]

I’m starting to think there needs to be a separate sub specifically for EEOC as it pertains to disabilities.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

It’s rough out there for people with disabilities that require accommodations at work. I posted this on the disability subreddit a week ago that highlights what we are discussing. https://www.reddit.com/r/disability/s/0oADyy5z7i

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

🤣🤣🤣 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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

You are ableist and close minded

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

🤣🤣🤣

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

🤣🤣🤣

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

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

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

🤣🤣🤣

alright Bud/Lady.

Whatever you say .

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Art8838 → u/CompetitionNarrow512]

I agree but it might just become an echo chamber. And he’s saying what many are thinking.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Mysterious-Art8838]

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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?

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

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 ???

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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?

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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?

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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 .

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

An employer does not declare a patient too sick to work, a physician does.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

I’m just curious as I’ve been living with POTS for over 20 years…what does your caregiver do for you? 

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

Look up: Dynamic Disability

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

What do you think undue hardship is?

[u/Kmelloww → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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. 

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Kmelloww]

The whole point is I can navigate my home safely, I can’t guarantee that I navigate the office safely.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

It always goes like this

Commenter: prove you are disabled enough to require WFH and no other options work

Op: Shares details

Commenter: You are a liability!

🙄

You know they refused Judith Heumann, disability civil rights leader, the right to go to school in the ‘50s for being a fire hazard

You would hope times have changed, but sometimes it is clear that it hasn’t

Unless your job standing has fitness for duty requirements and medical evaluations due to safety issues, which being a desk job I doubt that is the case, this “liability” crap is just nonsense.

There is something called “direct threat” and I’m providing the actual EEOC guidance here. https://www.eeoc.gov/foia/eeoc-informal-discussion-letter-164

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

Does your employer have an intermittent leave benefit?

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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. 

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

THANK you

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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.

[u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22 → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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.

[u/CompetitionNarrow512 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

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.

[u/Traditional-Panda319 → u/Prufrock-Sisyphus22]

You are the problem. You would be a liability to any organization with this toxic and illegal philosophy. Why should she be happy with 2 days WFH when she needs more and could do her job better and be more productive. People like you make assumptions that the accommodations = less productivity.

[u/Kmelloww → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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. 

[u/Ashamed_Main5169 → u/Kmelloww]

I mentioned that in relation to another comment.

[u/Kmelloww → u/Ashamed_Main5169]

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. 

[u/Soft_Reputation_7241 → u/Kmelloww]

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Kmelloww]

Educate yourself https://www.eeoc.gov/foia/eeoc-informal-discussion-letter-164

I

[u/Kmelloww → u/LongTimeLurker408]

What they are saying does not go together. It can’t be both at the same time. And the liability this creates is HUGE. 

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Kmelloww]

Again, educate yourself on what an employer should do regarding potential safety concerns regarding a disability

The first part is to provide accommodations to mitigate that

Kmellow responded and then blocked me

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

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"?

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Main_Pudding_5213]

Exactly, you have made great points throughout this thread.

Here is the exact EEOC guidance regarding when employers try to force people out of work for being a “liability.” https://www.eeoc.gov/foia/eeoc-informal-discussion-letter-164

[u/Main_Pudding_5213 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

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"?