Andrea Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.
883 F.3d 595 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether in-person attendance is an essential function of a job is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and a temporary teleworking arrangement for a finite period can be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if the employee provides sufficient evidence that they can perform all essential job functions remotely.
Facts:
- Andrea Mosby-Meachem was an in-house attorney for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division (MLG&W).
- In 2011, Mosby-Meachem's supervisor, Cheryl Patterson, sent an email emphasizing that all employees were expected to be physically present in the office during business hours.
- Despite the email, MLG&W had no formal written telecommuting policy, and in 2012, it had permitted Mosby-Meachem to work from home for two weeks while she recovered from neck surgery.
- In January 2013, due to pregnancy complications, Mosby-Meachem's doctors placed her on modified bed rest for approximately ten weeks.
- On January 7, 2013, Mosby-Meachem formally requested an accommodation to work from home for the ten-week period, providing a doctor's note supporting her request.
- While her request was pending from January 7 until January 30, Mosby-Meachem continued to perform her work remotely without any instruction from MLG&W to stop.
- On January 18, 2013, MLG&W's ADA Committee denied her request, later explaining in a letter that physical presence was an essential job function and that teleworking created confidentiality concerns.
- For a portion of the requested accommodation period, from February 26, 2013, onwards, Mosby-Meachem's law license was administratively suspended for failure to pay an annual fee, a fact of which she was unaware at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrea Mosby-Meachem filed suit against MLG&W in a Tennessee state trial court.
- MLG&W removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
- After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Mosby-Meachem on her disability discrimination claim, awarding her $92,000.00 in compensatory damages.
- The district court also granted Mosby-Meachem's motion for equitable relief, awarding her backpay.
- MLG&W filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied MLG&W's renewed motion.
- MLG&W, as appellant, appealed the district court's denial of its motion and its award of equitable relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Mosby-Meachem is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the ADA by denying a temporary, 10-week teleworking accommodation to a pregnant employee on bedrest when the employer asserts that in-person attendance is an essential function of the job?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons
Yes. An employer violates the ADA by denying such an accommodation where a reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that in-person attendance was not an essential function for the limited period requested. The determination of what constitutes an essential function is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and an employee is considered 'otherwise qualified' if they can perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. Here, Mosby-Meachem presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find she was qualified, including testimony from coworkers and outside counsel who believed she could perform her duties remotely, her own prior successful experience with teleworking, and evidence that she had never performed certain job functions cited as requiring in-person presence, like trying cases or taking depositions. The court distinguished this case from precedent like E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., noting that Mosby-Meachem's request was for a finite, predictable 10-week period, unlike the indefinite and unpredictable telework schedule sought in Ford. Furthermore, evidence suggested MLG&W failed to engage in a good-faith 'interactive process' as required by the ADA, as testimony indicated the decision to deny telecommuting had been predetermined by management.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the question of whether physical presence is an 'essential function' of a job under the ADA is not a categorical rule but a fact-intensive inquiry that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It serves as a significant check on employers who might otherwise rely on blanket 'in-office' policies or outdated job descriptions to deny telework accommodations. The ruling emphasizes that with modern technology, many professional jobs may be performed remotely, at least for a finite period, and places a burden on employers to genuinely engage in the interactive process rather than making predetermined denials. This precedent strengthens the position of employees seeking temporary remote work as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
