In a recent New York case, a jury awarded a $954,000 verdict because an employer refused to allow an employee to work from home as an accommodation.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and certain state laws, including the New York State Human Rights Law and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, employers must provide reasonable accommodations that enable employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer may deny a requested accommodation if the employee cannot perform the job even with the accommodation or if providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer.
The employer in Mirabella v. Stony Brook University Blood Bank ("Blood Bank") was hit with a nearly one-million-dollar verdict after refusing to reasonably accommodate an employee.
Mirabella v. Stony Brook University Blood Bank
Donna Mirabella, a Technical Associate Director, worked for the Blood Bank for 12 years before contracting COVID-19 during the pandemic. She subsequently developed long COVID, which caused extreme fatigue and other debilitating symptoms.
When Ms. Mirabella returned to work following a leave of absence, she experienced significant fatigue from working on-site. According to the evidence presented at trial, she became so exhausted that she required several days of recovery before she could return to the office.
As a result, Ms. Mirabella requested a modified schedule that would allow her to work remotely for three days after working one day in the office. She also provided medical documentation from her physician in support of the accommodation request.
The Blood Bank denied the request, arguing that Ms. Mirabella could not effectively perform her job remotely and that permitting remote work would create an undue hardship for the organization.
The Lawsuit and Trial Outcome
Ms. Mirabella filed suit against the Blood Bank, alleging that her employer violated the New York State Human Rights Law by discriminating against her because of her disability and by refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation.
During cross-examination, however, Ms. Mirabella's supervisor testified that he had previously allowed her to work remotely and that she had successfully performed her job while doing so.
That testimony directly contradicted the employer's position. The jury ultimately concluded that the Blood Bank could have accommodated Ms. Mirabella, that she was capable of performing her job while working remotely, and that allowing her to do so would not have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
As a result, the jury awarded Ms. Mirabella $954,000.
Why This Case Matters
The Mirabella case is reportedly the first known case recognizing both:
- Long COVID as a disability; and
- Telework as a reasonable accommodation for long COVID.
What Employers Should Consider Before Denying Remote Work Requests
Employers should carefully evaluate accommodation requests involving remote work before denying them.
In particular, employers should ensure that:
- The employee cannot perform the essential functions of the position from home; and
- The employee has not previously demonstrated an ability to successfully perform the job remotely.
As Mirabella demonstrates, denying a work-from-home accommodation request without sufficient support can create significant legal and financial risk.
Questions About Reasonable Accommodation Requirements?
If you have questions regarding reasonable accommodations under the ADA or other employment laws, please contact Stephanie Gironda or any member of the Wilentz
Employment Law Team.
BLOG DISCLAIMER
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.