ADA reasonable accommodation claim will go to trial

Here is a reasonable accommodation case under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the modern age: the plaintiff wanted to be able to work from home to accommodate her disability, but management denied that request. The Court of Appeals says she has a case.

The case is Laguerre v. National Grid USA, a summary order issued on March 11. Plaintiff was a customer service representative who also has lupus. Her job involved handling phone calls for the company. While her first claim alleging that she wanted to be transferred to a new position failed because plaintiff was unable to identify identify the existence of a vacant position to which she could have been reassigned, her other claim may proceed to trial. That's the telecommuting claim.

The telecommuting claim may proceed to trial because the record shows it was plausible for customer service representatives to work from home, and the employer was able to acquire the technology to make that happen. "The evidence demonstrates that CSR's at National Grid who perform functions other than receiving inbound customer calls have worked remotely, National Grid has piloted remote work positions in the past, and inbound calls can be routed to other call centers. The president of the union, who worked as a CSR in the call center for 25 years, also stated her belief that it was possible to route calls to other locations, and based on her experience, she did not see why calls could not be routed to a CSR’s home." On this record, plaintiff has satisfied her modest burden in showing that a plausible accommodation was available.

The employer therefore must show that the accommodation was not reasonable or that it would be unduly burdensome for the company. The company cannot satisfy that burden. The best that National Grid can do is provide conclusory testimony that plaintiff cannot work from home because the company lacked the technology to make it happen. But the ADA says that a reasonable accommodation "may include acquisition or modification of equipment or devices and other similar accommodations." The company did not say on the summary judgment motion that the technology was unavailable or was too expensive, and it did not claim to have investigated the feasibility of procuring such technology in response to plaintiff's request for an accommodation.Nor did the company show what it would cost to acquire the technology, much less an analysis to show that the cost would have exceeded its benefits.

Bottom line: this case will go to trial on whether National Grid violated the ADA in denying plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation. Now that we've all seen how telecommuting can work in the COVID-19 era, the jury ( most of which will be working men and women) may understand plaintiff's claims better than it might have five or ten years ago.