Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
782 F.3d 753 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), regular and predictable on-site attendance can be an essential function of a job, especially for highly interactive positions. An employer is not required to provide a telecommuting accommodation that would eliminate an essential job function, as such a request is unreasonable per se.

Facts:

Jane Harris was employed by Ford Motor Company as a resale buyer, a position that Ford considered highly interactive, requiring teamwork and in-person meetings with suppliers and internal staff.
Harris suffered from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a condition that caused uncontrollable and unpredictable symptoms, leading to her chronic absenteeism and poor job performance.
Over her tenure, Harris's performance declined, and she was ranked in the bottom 10% of her peers in her final two years, with her absences causing her teammates stress and requiring them to cover her responsibilities.
Ford had previously allowed Harris two trial periods of an 'Alternative Work Schedule' which included ad hoc telecommuting, but both attempts failed to improve her attendance or ability to perform the core objectives of her job.
Harris formally requested an accommodation to work from home on an as-needed basis for up to four days per week.
During a meeting with Ford management to discuss the request, Harris acknowledged that four of her ten primary job responsibilities could not be performed from home.
Ford denied Harris's specific telecommuting request, determining it was unreasonable, but offered alternative accommodations, such as moving her workspace closer to a restroom or helping her find a different position within Ford more suitable for telecommuting.
Harris rejected Ford's alternative offers and did not propose any other potential accommodations.

Procedural Posture:

Jane Harris filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC sued Ford Motor Company on behalf of Harris in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation under the ADA.
Ford moved for summary judgment on both claims.
The district court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment.
The EEOC appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit then granted a petition for rehearing en banc, which vacated the decision of the three-judge panel.

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 Americans with Disabilities Act by denying an employee's request to telecommute on an unpredictable, as-needed basis for up to four days a week when regular and predictable on-site attendance is an essential function of that employee's highly interactive job?

Opinions:

Majority - McKeague, J.

No. An employer does not violate the ADA by denying such a request because regular, in-person attendance can be an essential function for interactive jobs, and an accommodation that eliminates an essential function is unreasonable. The court determined that regular and predictable on-site attendance was an essential function of Harris’s resale-buyer job. This conclusion was supported by Ford's business judgment, its written policies, the job's inherently interactive nature, and the consistent practice of other employees. Harris’s proposed accommodation to telecommute unpredictably for up to four days a week was unreasonable because it sought to remove this essential function. The court noted Harris’s own admission that several key duties could not be performed remotely and her past failures with more limited telecommuting arrangements. Furthermore, the court found Harris's retaliation claim failed because Ford presented a legitimate, non-pretextual reason for her termination—her well-documented history of poor performance and high absenteeism.

Dissenting - Moore, J.

Yes. The majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC at the summary judgment stage, and a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether physical presence is an essential job function. Harris testified that she performed 95% of her job via computer and telephone, and the fact that Ford permitted other resale buyers to telecommute undermines its argument that constant physical presence is essential. Ford also failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith, as it did not seriously explore a more limited telework arrangement after Harris clarified her request was for up to four days, not a rigid schedule. The dissent also argued that a reasonable jury could find Ford's reason for termination was pretext for retaliation, given the suspicious timing of the negative performance review and termination shortly after Harris filed her EEOC charge.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that employers have significant discretion in defining the essential functions of a position, particularly when designating on-site attendance as a requirement for interactive or team-based roles. The ruling establishes a high bar for employees seeking telecommuting as an accommodation, requiring them to demonstrate that physical presence is not genuinely essential, rather than merely inconvenient. By deferring to Ford's documented business judgment, the court signals that it will not easily second-guess an employer's operational decisions, so long as they are job-related and uniformly enforced. The case serves as a key precedent limiting the scope of telecommuting as a mandatory reasonable accommodation under the ADA for many traditional office jobs.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co. (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"