I've heard through the vine that folks with longstanding and easily proven medical accommodations - the accommodations are being reviewed or terminated. The federal ADA states that the employer can periodically review an existing, but not terminate. Has anyone experienced this?
28 replies (most recent on top)
Successful WFH for last 5 years with accommodation. Now the they are suggesting RTO with the suggestion of "noise cancelling headphones", even with several doctors letters explicitly stating "continued full remote work". Asked HR rep what undue hardship the continued WFM would cause, they actually responded with "there is no undue hardship"... and then proceeded to try to close the case. They sent an email, even after objection, stating they will be "sending their accommodation suggestions to manager and moving forward with RTO". What now?!
I heard last week starting in January they are pushing for zero tolerance wfh of any kind. Medical or otherwise. Many departments are increasing to 4x a week (8 hours per day) starting January too. Assuming we aren't all laid off by then. Job market is toxic. Old co workers have been laid off 2 yrs now, still looking. Internally slim as well.
@rp Limiting it to suits where the employer claimed undue hardship to rescind/deny telework and lost, Russo v. Nat'l Grid, U.S.A. is the easy one. EEOC's suits against Total Systems Services and United Labor Agency. Mosby-Meacham.
Mosby-Meacham also reminds us that, like the company's expensive disagreement with Chris Billesdon, if loose-lipped agents inform employees that telework won't receive serious consideration, that can itself indicate refusal to engage in the interactive process. Hope everybody's been sticking to the script.
@re would love to see cases where findings have gone in favor of the employee for something like this - any company, not just WF.
Be sure to post that here when you find one.
@r2 A generalized RTO policy is a business preference. Remote work doesn't become "undue hardship" just because a company says so. Under the ADA, the analysis is about the individual employee's actual job. If a role has been performed successfully from home over time and the duties haven't materially changed, it's very difficult to argue that continuing remote work is now "unduly costly, extensive, substantial or disruptive, or would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business."
Existing accommodations matter because in that situation the employer is the one seeking to change what is already documented to work. If it can't prove that the employee isn't performing, claiming undue hardship is the alternative. But that ultimately requires an individualized, evidence-based showing on the employer's part. "We just want everyone in the office," "morale," or "collaboration" won't meet that burden.
@qs Nope. The law does not treat an existing accommodation differently than a new one. Job requirements can change at any time and any accommodation is then considered for "undue hardship" relative to the new requirement. In office is just another job requirement. If the job requirement is now "be in the office" then WFH by definition is an undue hardship as it prevents fulfillment of a core job requirement.
That's how this stuff works. I don't like it either but it is how it works.
The only factor that comes into play is distance to said office in determining whether it is considered a material change (if it is over 40 miles). And in that case the answer/remediation is severance, not continued WFH. this has all been pressure tested repeatedly with regulators.
@g8 "ADA says that they have to offer what is a "reasonable" accommodation as long as it doesn't cause undue business hardship. It does not say the company has to give you the preferred accommodation - to allow you to work from home."
There is a legal difference between an ongoing accommodation that was already granted and a new accommodation. The company may be trying to muddy the waters since they have no legal basis for unilaterally modifying your accommodation to remove WFH. "We want everyone to come into the office now" for jobs that have been done from home for years = no undue hardship, and that's held up when it's gone to the law.
At least make them manufacture a BS performance excuse in writing before you fold.
I'm not defending this - just stating why, despite all of the opinions on this thread, telling someone that they can no longer have WFH as an accommodation is likely not considered unreasonable and is certainly not illegal under ADA.
The company's stated business model is that people come to the office. That is published and it's being applied company wide and tracked - with penalties for noncompliance. It doesn't matter at all whether we think it's a stupid policy or not - in terms of how the reasonableness of an accommodation would be evaluated, that's the policy it would be judged against.
therefore, saying you can't drive for your commute is not the company's problem and they don't need to "accommodate" it since you have other means of getting to the office even if you don't like them or they are longer or more expensive.
If you have issues with being physically "in" the office - mobility getting from parking to work area, light or noise sensitivity, fatigue from a chronic disease or medical treatment etc. then WFH is one accommodation but not the only one. They can offer different seating location, private office, an area to rest during the day, etc. ADA says that they have to offer what is a "reasonable" accommodation as long as it doesn't cause undue business hardship. It does not say the company has to give you the preferred accommodation - to allow you to work from home.
My heart goes out to every person impacted by this. i'm a manager with several WFH accommodations on my team and I know every one of those people have a legit physical limitation - they are not scamming.
Don't rely on outrage or passivity - neither will work to get what you want. figure out whether this job and employer are worth it to you if you have to come into the office and if not, start or intensify your job search for greener fields.
Are we confusing WFH with medical accommodations? They can cancel your WFH status if they can "accommodate" you in the office. Medical accommodations don't guarantee you get to WFH, but that's what everyone is trying to do.
I think true medical accommodations that result in WFH are a small piece compared to the accommodations population. It su-ks that these other a-holes ruin it for really issues.
I kind of laugh when people go through all the medical cr-p for stupid reasons thinking they'll get WFH and Wells just says they can assign you an office or something to accommodate your stupid reasons. I've had one guy admit that he basically lied just to get a certain seat. You can find a doctor to sign almost anything as it's not really against the law like prescriptions or insurance.
So I asked HR if there was written policy on these accommodation reviews. I was assured, "oh yes, we have been doing that!". But guess what, no, no reference to any written policy. Its all verbal. And I was told its "BAU" but no where is there a written policy.
Unless the firm is caught, I guess it just slides under the radar, no matter how unfair or illegal it is.
@er Try to get HR to say/write that your accommodation is being terminated. They refused to say that when I kept asking. They can ask you if your accommodation isn't working for you but if they LEGALLY want to change it, they need to have a real reason aside from general RTO BS.
This is why the ADA exists.
So the form email I was sent indicated my accommodation was terminated, and that I had to request a new one.
That doesn't sound like a "review". Sems to me WF is doing what they want, whether or not it meets the letter of the law.
@b6 not true. I was a top performer and they revoked my medical accommodation and I got put on the layoffs list. There was no reason other than I was remote.
I had a medical accommodation as I'm still going thru cancer treatment and they revoked mine and laid me off yet are granting accommodations to those for minor conditions not protected under ADA.
I had a medical accommodation as I'm still going thru cancer treatment and they revoked mine and laid me off yet are granting accommodations to those for conditions not protected under ADA.
Treated badly here too. My lawyer said ‘I think they’re fcking with you’ - but she can’t really do anything until I get fired.
An accommodation that was approved without an end date isn’t something the company can just cancel. It can only be changed in a few situations:
You request a change.
There’s a legitimate, documented business reason to change it, such as:
Your performance isn’t meeting expectations even with the accommodation.
Your role has changed and the essential functions are now different.
The accommodation has become an undue hardship for the company.
On that last point: “we decided everyone should come back to the office” by itself doesn’t make your individual accommodation an undue hardship — especially when (a) you’ve already been doing the job remotely (e.g. during COVID) and/or (b) most of the work is on Teams with people who aren’t in the office anyway.
What HR is doing here looks intentional: keeping things vague, not putting rationale in writing, and avoiding specific policy references so there’s nothing that can be cited later. That kind of behavior usually means they know the position isn’t strong, and they’re trying to get employees to accept it without pushing back.
@b7 they'll do it strictly for the health insurance
Hate to say it but people that are working after 70 likely don’t want to come to the office and will continue to work the remote option for the big paycheck. If they had to return to the office they would retire. Face it at that age it is a challenge to go in and face the grind of being in office. Going to the golf course is not a challenge and they get a golf cart
They can terminate you or the accommodation. Likely if they terminate you it is not related to the fact you are remote. There are other issues
Personally i think it is a horrible experience talking to them at all. To me you are better off having them refuse the accommodation and then proceed to go in the office. If you miss a beat because of issues you may have a better case to either sue or for them to support the accommodation. Showing is better than telling (or doctor’s note that is very broad)
The assumption is if you go to the store if you go shopping out to eat vacation then guess what you can come to the office. You may only have to come in one day a week (for a while) but the goal is back to the office regardless whether it is popular or not.
They don't care anymore. Get in the office or risk losing your job. They welcome anyone to find employment elsewhere if you don't like it.
Some states have laws about the commute and the way ADA is applied overall, and also the status of it. I think it varies based on individual circumstances. But it sure does sound like a lot of folks are being treated badly (perhaps even in violation of ADA) and thus have recourse. However, most folks shy away from that, and so WF wins. IMHO, they are gambling that they can get away with it, and statistics will likely show they can.
@ag I had the same thing happen to me. But when you look up the ADA workplace accommodation information I saw nothing there about excluding the commute as Wells claims. I had a doctors note and just because it mentioned the commute mine was not renewed. I don’t think what they are doing is legal but until a bunch of people get together to fight it it is probably too expensive for any one individual to file a lawsuit.
My accommodation expired in June. When I went to re-certify for the year, HR said that inability to complete commute was no longer an approved accommodation for remote work. If I intended to stay in my position, I could use a ride share service to transport me the 42 miles to the office I was assigned 3 days per week at my own expense.
yep. they will chuck you and i personally believe they are targeting the older (higher paid for some, some not) workers and those with accommodations and the remote folks. believe that they will find a way around it, legally, to let these people go.
Yes, I had my medical accommodation reviewed and submitted it to HR and was let go the next day. My condition was serious and me doctor told me not to drive for fear of getting in an accident
Yes. Just happened. Had documentation updated but before next meeting with accomodation, I was laid off.