22.1 million more reasons to take seriously employee requests to work from home

The recent $22.1 million verdict in the case of Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, Inc. has cast a spotlight on the increasing legal risks organizations face when they ignore work-from-home requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

This landmark federal case in North Carolina underscores the critical need for employers to understand their obligations under the ADA, particularly in the evolving landscape of remote work. Robert Billesdon, a former managing director at Wells Fargo Securities, was awarded a substantial sum after alleging that he had been laid off for requesting to work from home as a disability accommodation.

Billesdon’s impairment required him to have frequent and immediate access to a restroom, leading him to request a work-from-home accommodation before pandemic restrictions were lifted and employees were recalled to the office. The jury found that Wells Fargo’s managers did not adequately engage in the interactive process required by the ADA to explore reasonable accommodations for Billesdon. Instead, they allegedly pushed back on his request and ultimately selected his role for elimination.

This failure to engage in “genuine discourse” about the accommodation request, along with the preemptive selection of his role for elimination, were pivotal in the jury’s decision. These actions were deemed violations of both the ADA and state law​​.

Moreover, the jury awarded a significant portion of that sum for punitive damages and emotional distress. That indicates substantial sympathy among juries in cases where an employer denies work-from-home requests. Having served as an expert witness on several such cases, I can attest that jury trials tend to lead to significant awards for employees who request flexible work accommodations.

The ADA mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, ensuring they can perform their job functions without undue hardship on the employer. These accommodations can range from physical adjustments in the workplace to modifications in work schedules, including the possibility of remote work.

Accommodations have to be made not only for physical health challenges, but mental health conditions as well. As United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Keith Sonderling explained in an interview with me, “Employers must engage in an interactive process with employees who request accommodations for mental health conditions. If an employee is diagnosed with a mental health issue, the employer is obligated to consider accommodations, which could include remote work.”

According to the Job Accommodation Network, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Labor, the interactive process involves recognizing an accommodation request, gathering relevant information, exploring possible options, implementing the chosen accommodation, and monitoring its effectiveness.

Courts and enforcement authorities typically disfavor any party that causes a breakdown in this process. If an employer fails to engage sincerely in this process, it can be seen as evidence of discrimination. Conversely, if an employee abandons the process, the employer may be deemed to have met its ADA obligations.

Ignoring or mishandling accommodation requests, particularly for remote work, can expose employers to significant legal risks. The Billesdon case is a stark reminder of the potential consequences. Organizations may face hefty fines, legal fees, and damages, not to mention reputational harm.

Long after President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA, the pandemic shifted the work environment, making remote work a more viable and often preferred option for many employees, including those with disabilities. As organizations transition back to in-office operations, they must carefully consider work-from-home requests and other accommodations to comply with ADA requirements.

To mitigate legal risks and foster an inclusive work environment, employers should adopt best practices when handling accommodation requests. Employers should initiate the interactive process promptly upon receiving accommodation requests. Engage in open and sincere discussions with the employee to explore all feasible options.

Also, keep thorough records of all communications, decisions, and actions taken during the accommodation process. This documentation can be crucial if the process is ever called into question. Ensure that managers and HR personnel are well-versed in ADA requirements and the importance of the interactive process. Regular training can help prevent missteps that could lead to legal trouble. Assess each work-from-home request on its merits, considering the specific needs of the employee and the nature of their job.

Avoid blanket policies that categorically deny remote work without considering individual circumstances. The legal landscape around remote work and disability accommodations is evolving. Stay informed about new rulings, regulations, and best practices to ensure compliance.

Sonderling emphasized the importance of training managers and HR professionals to handle these requests properly. “It’s crucial for employers to understand that they can’t dismiss mental health accommodation requests out of hand,” he told me. “Failure to engage in the interactive process can lead to significant legal repercussions.”

The Billesdon case serves as a critical lesson for employers about the growing legal risks of ignoring work-from-home requests under the ADA. By proactively engaging in the interactive process, documenting decisions, and training managers, organizations can better navigate accommodation requests and avoid costly legal battles. As the workplace continues to evolve, prioritizing ADA compliance and fostering an inclusive environment will be key both to companies’ legal protection and employees’ well-being​​.

Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.