Last November we reported on the 6th Circuit case of EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. (read that post here). At that time the Sixth Circuit reversed a District Court grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Employer, Ford Motors, in an ADA action by one of its employees on the basis that the company did not explore the option of telecommuting for plaintiff.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Ford but the Sixth Circuit reversed by a 2 – 1 panel vote, finding that defendant failed to engage in the interactive process. The Sixth Circuit en banc has now held in favor of the Defendant. The court found that regular and consistent attendance was an essential function of that plaintiff’s job, because of the need for those in that job to engage in face-to-face communication and work with one another.
While the employer won this one, they shouldn’t dispense with the idea that telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation in some instances. As always, this is a case by case analysis. Employers can help themselves by examining their job descriptions not only to update them when appropriate but in doing so, to determine whether actual attendance at the workplace is essential, and if so, why.