On April 10, 2015, the 6th Circuit reached what many believe is the right decision and reversed its much–debated decision in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 752 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2014) from April 2014 – which had held that Ford had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by declining to allow an employee to telecommute (in other words, to work from home), whenever she wished.

Ford petitioned for en banc review of that decision, and on April 10 the panel issued a ruling that effectively gutted the prior ruling.

The panel cut to the core of the issue, by holding that “an employee who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise,” as “most jobs require the kind of teamwork, personal interaction, and supervision that simply cannot be had in a home office situation.”

We wrote about this case first in our 2014 Employer Express newsletter.  Ford employee Jane Harris suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, which she claimed limited her ability to function in the office.  She claimed that her symptoms were very severe, claims which Ford did not dispute.  After many absences, she asked Ford if she could work from home whenever her illness flared up.  Ford offered to accommodate her, but denied that specific accommodation. The biggest problem with her request, according to Ford, was the unpredictability of the telecommuting schedule and the fact that it could keep her out of the office as much as 4 days per week.  The company argued that she could not be effective if she was not present at work on a regular basis. There was also evidence that she had other work performance problems, which were not all related to her illness.

She filed an EEOC charge, but the poor attendance continued.  She was ultimately fired, and the EEOC brought suit on her behalf.

As the case proceeded through discovery Ford produced evidence that her job required meetings and “teamwork,” which Harris claimed she could accomplish via phone and email. Also, there was evidence that her absences caused stress and anxiety to co-workers and supervisors, who had to “pick up the slack” and perform her responsibilities when she was out of the office.

Ms. Harris disputed this.

Initially, Ford won summary judgment at the district court, which found that her proposal to work from home was NOT a reasonable accommodation.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and determined that there were issues of fact on the ADA claim.  In a hotly-debated ruling, the Circuit held that – due to advances in technology – one could not assume that physical attendance was a necessary requirement of every job.

The En Banc Reversal

In the recent decision, the full Sixth Circuit reversed, and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

In so doing, the Court noted that both the language of the ADA and the EEOC’s regulations supported the conclusion that attendance at work and presence at the work site was an “essential function” of most jobs and that “most jobs would be fundamentally altered if regular and predictable on site attendance is removed.” It also noted that the EEOC’s own guidance confirmed that an employer could refuse a telecommuting request if the job required “face-to-face interaction and coordination with other employees,” or “in person interaction with colleagues, clients or customaries.”

Notably, the Court also soundly rejected the EEOC’s argument that because Ford had allowed some employees to telecommute on a limited basis (1 or 2 set days per week), Ford was required to allow Plaintiff her request to telecommute whenever she wanted, up to 4 days per week.
Continue Reading A “Common Sense” Victory for Employers – The Ford Telecommuting Decision is Reversed

As more details emerge about the troubled past of First Officer Andreas Lubitz – the co-pilot at the controls of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps in March – employers worldwide are faced with pressing questions that should bring renewed focus toward their policies regarding identifying and managing mental illness in the workplace.

How can employers be supportive of employees with mental health issues?

The Germanwings co-pilot hid important information regarding his mental illness from his employer.  Employers should be aware of the stigma that many employees may feel will result from their reporting a mental illness.  The more proactive an employer can be to reduce this fear, the more likely it is that an employee will come forward.  In fact, this is exactly why at least some pilots with mental health issues are not automatically barred from flying – the rationale being that employees who fear reprisals or different treatment will simply hide their problems.  Employers should consider offering employee assistance programs, or access to mental health resources, and ensure that there is a confidential process for employees who want to seek help or otherwise report their mental illness, or any medical issue, to their employer.  A greater show of support will foster an open environment.

Can an employer in the U.S. “test” the mental health of an employee or applicant? 

The answer is not clear in every case, but employers should be aware that they do have the ability to require employees and applicants to undergo mental examinations in certain circumstances.

This is a complex area. Just as there are laws in the European Union (EU) which protect employee privacy and restrict what information an employer can obtain about an employee’s mental (and physical) health, many of the same restrictions also exist here.

On the federal level, there are two laws to consider: the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against an employee based on a disability, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects and prohibits disclosure of patient medical records.

The ADA includes mental health problems as a “disability.” In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the ADA also restricts when and under what circumstances an employer may require an employee to undergo medical examinations. The ADA does not specifically address psychological tests. However, it is likely that such a test would be treated as a “medical examination” for purposes of the law. At least one court did hold, in 2012, that a psychiatric examination was  a medical test prohibited under the ADA.[1]

An employer generally cannot conduct any pre-offer medical testing of job applicants under the ADA.  Once an employee has been hired or provided with a conditional offer of employment, an employer is still restricted from requiring employees undergo a medical examination or mental health evaluation in every case.  The average employer may only conduct a medical examination to the extent it is “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.”  42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).  This means that the medical test must be designed to measure the employee’s ability to do the job in question.

For industries where public safety is an issue, the decision to require medical and mental health evaluations is easier, and is even required in many industries by law or  regulation.[2]  Outside of industries where medical examinations are required by law, employers must be careful to make a connection between the employee’s ability to perform his or her job duties, and the required medical or mental exams required. Even if not required by law, many employers have employees who do work that is potentially dangerous and could subject themselves, other workers, or members of the public to risks.  This “consistent with business necessity” principle applies to applicants and employees alike – periodic medical or mental examinations of employees must have the same justification as applicant testing.  A general medical examination policy must not be applied selectively – employers must require evaluations of all persons in affected positions.

Where a medical or mental examination is properly conducted, an applicant or employee can be rejected or terminated if it turns out that she has an impairment which prevents her from performing an essential function of the job, and the employer can show that it could not reasonably accommodate that impairment.  Employers must consider accommodation or possible leaves of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act or related state leave laws for current employees.  Employers should review their policies, and ensure that they include a requirement that employees receive “fitness for duty” certifications from their physicians following a medical leave of absence.

What can you do if an employee is behaving strangely, or others report that they have done something to make them “nervous” or afraid?
Continue Reading Germanwings Tragedy Highlights Important Mental Health Considerations for Employers

According to the EEOC, a majority of employers now offer some form of wellness program.  Employer wellness programs are designed to incentivize employees to adopt a healthier lifestyle and benefit employers in the form of lower costs for insurance premiums and decreased absenteeism.  Participation requirements vary widely from program to program, but employees who participate

While drug testing policies are becoming commonplace, employers must remember that they can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if reasonable accommodations are not provided, as a recent decision in a Maryland federal court demonstrates. In January, Kmart settled an EEOC suit over its alleged discriminatory urine drug test policy. The lawsuit was based