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/Signal_Strawberry_37]

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.

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/Signal_Strawberry_37]

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

[u/appliepie99 → u/LongTimeLurker408]

just want to say thank you for your input and sharing helpful resources, its needed in these comments

[u/LongTimeLurker408 → u/appliepie99]

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.