Several months ago, we wrote a blog post about telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation. (See “Telecommuting: Is It Reasonable?," published on February 28, 2017). Recently, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision regarding this issue in Credeur v. Lousiana. While this decision is not binding on New Jersey courts, the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning is interesting and instructive.
First, the court reaffirmed the fact that most courts across the nation agree that regular attendance at an employee’s place of employment is an essential function of the employee’s job for most jobs. The key take away for employers regarding this point is to make sure that all job descriptions are up-to-date and accurate so that the essential functions of an employee’s job are clear. Having up-to-date and accurate job descriptions will aid employers in evaluating accommodation options during the interactive process. (See “Let’s Talk: The Interactive Process Between Employer and Employee,” published on February 15, 2017).
Second, the court explained that the American with Disabilities Act does not require employers to offer their disabled employees the option of unlimited telecommuting. Indeed, the court reasoned that such a holding would have a chilling effect on telecommuting polices. This point can somewhat ease the minds of employers who fear that offering telecommuting as an accommodation locks them into allowing employees to work from home for an indefinite and unlimited period. However, if it is an employer’s position that an employee can only telecommute for a limited period, the essential functions of an employee’s job, as described in their job description, must support this conclusion. Additionally, New Jersey employers should note that they must comply with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination when it comes to reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.
Ultimately, while written job descriptions may seem unimportant, they can greatly aid employers in evaluating accommodation requests and can assist employers and employees in reaching reasonable solutions regarding accommodations.
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 date 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.