As technology evolves, so does the body of law along with it. A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District underscores this point.
As described by Columbus, Ohio, attorney Jamie LaPlante on her law firm's blog, the case in question involved a woman suffering from irritable bowel syndrome who was employed by Ford Motor Co. Ford felt that her job required her to be on-site most, if not all, days of the workweek. As her malady became worse, though, her desire to work from home to address her physical condition began to increasingly clash with Ford's insistence that she come to work.
As LaPlante writes: "The employee utilized intermittent FMLA leave over a period of time when she could not report to work due to her condition. Ford permitted the employee to work from home on a trial basis, but the trial proved unsuccessful because the employee could not establish regular and consistent work hours to effectively interface with others to perform her job duties.
Recommended For You
"Even though Ford permitted all of its employees to apply for telecommuting arrangements (usually 1-2 days per week), the request of the employee in question was denied because her position required in-person meetings with suppliers and teaming with co-workers that could not effectively be done remotely four out of five days per week, according to Ford. Ford did offer to relocate the employee's office closer to a restroom or transfer her to a position more suitable for telecommuting. The employee rejected both proposals."
The situation came to a head, and the employee filed a complaint with the EEOC, which took up the case on her behalf.
Based on legal precedent, Ford probably thought it had a strong case.
But as LaPlante notes: "Courts in the past, including in the Sixth Circuit, have held that telecommuting is not required as a reasonable accommodation because regular attendance at work on a predictable schedule is an essential function of almost all jobs (excepting those that are regularly done by all employees from a remote location)."
Ford was wrong. The Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiff. In part, the court said, the earlier decisions were based upon previous technologies, which didn't facilitate telecommuting the way current technology does.
"The court held that the employee's proposal to work from home four out of five days per week was not unreasonable," LaPlante said. "The court justified its departure from its earlier decisions by stating that technology has changed in the past couple decades, and working from home is a more viable solution than it was when it previously was rejected. … While attendance is still an essential function of every job, physical presence in an employer worksite might not be.
"The court held that, today, it is not unusual that an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties from a remote location — including teamwork with co-workers."
The court referred the case to the trial court to determine if the employee could perform all of her job duties from home four out of five days per week.
LaPlante's advice to employers: "Under this precedent, an employer may be required to grant some degree of telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation. However, employers still may require regular attendance during regular working hours, even if that attendance is via telecommuting."
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Dan Cook
Dan Cook is a journalist and communications consultant based in Portland, OR. During his journalism career he has been a reporter and editor for a variety of media companies, including American Lawyer Media, BusinessWeek, Newhouse Newspapers, Knight-Ridder, Time Inc., and Reuters. He specializes in health care and insurance related coverage for BenefitsPRO.
