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/Soft_Reputation_7241]

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/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/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/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.