The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act (applicable to federal employees) prohibit an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability. A “qualified individual” is someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. One form of prohibited discrimination is to not make a reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Often, employees ask to work from home as a reasonable accommodation and the employer bristles at the idea. In the case described below, the shoe was on the other foot. The employer offered 100% telework to the employee, an accommodation that, in most cases, would have been acceptable to most employees.

Here’s What Happened:

Ghulam Ali worked for the EPA for many years as an economist, long suffered from severe allergies, and for about 10 years worked in a private office. Due to office reshuffling, the EPA permanently moved Ali to a cubicle. Then, the EPA moved a co-worker to a desk next to his and the co-worker’s cologne triggered Ali’s allergies. Ali asked for a private office but one wasn’t available. So, the EPA moved Ali to a cubicle away from the cologne-wearing co-worker. Ali responded that the new cubicle also was “very perfumy” and that other free cubicles were located near printers that separately triggered his allergies or had “problems of one kind or another.”

Ali re-upped his request for a private office, attaching doctors’ letters documenting his disability. Ali’s supervisor responded by offering to engage in an interactive process with him to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be reached. Yet, rather than “engaging” with Ali, the EPA sent him a letter the same day offering just one accommodation – “permission to work from home full time” – a request Ali had not made. The EPA further took the position that “privacy issues” prevented it from asking that Ali’s perfumed colleagues stop wearing cologne. Ali rejected 100% telework as a reasonable accommodation because he thought it would compromise his ability to work with teammates or take on leadership roles. He also stated that a home printer would cause an allergic reaction. Ali reiterated his request for a private office. Ali sought to engage the EPA in accommodation discussions, and, when those efforts failed, filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act.

Because Ali was a federal employee, his claim had to wend its way through various agency proceedings. He lost at every level, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld those decisions on appeal. Eventually, Ali appealed to a federal district court. That court, too, ruled in favor of the EPA and granted summary judgment in its favor.

However, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court summary judgment in favor of the EPA. It emphasized that the EPA broke its promise to engage in a give-and-take discussion with Ali about what a reasonable accommodation might be when it unilaterally announced that the only accommodation would be 100% telework.

Why You Should Know This: Be sure to engage in a documented interactive process when addressing employee requests for accommodation. Courts focus on the law applied to the facts but also on whether the employer treated the employee fairly. The majority’s emphasis on the EPA “breaking its promise” to engage in the interactive process seems mistaken given the EPA already had determined the only accommodation proposed by Ali was not reasonable and it had offered an accommodation that, in most instances, would have been acceptable to the employee.

Cited Authority: Ali v. Regan, 111 F.4th 1264 (D.C. Cir. August 2024)