Learning To Work With Remote Work: Projections for Post-Pandemic Workplace Legal Issues
While some issues are brand new, most are common problems simply manifesting in new ways.
October 29, 2021 at 02:30 PM
8 minute read
More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 crisis, the slow creep "back to normal" is proving more like the dawn of a new workplace era. While the outlines are still forming, we can see clearly that remote work and flexibility will be hallmarks of the new workplace age. These changes, of course, bring challenges for employers. While some issues are brand new, most are common problems simply manifesting in new ways.
|Accommodations and Schedules
Remote work is more popular than ever, with employers and employees both embracing the change in at least some respects. Even employers who return to fully in-person schedules will likely find at least some unavoidable increase in remote work. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long considered remote work a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Advances in technology over the years have chipped away at employers' arguments that remote work constitutes an undue hardship, and the pandemic added dramatic evidence that lots of work can, in fact, be done remotely. The paradigm shift also increased reliance on support technologies, such as Zoom and Slack, quelling some of the pre-pandemic concerns about decreased collaboration and communication. Employer upgrades to technological infrastructure to support remote work have also largely alleviated data security concerns.
Sometimes remote work is not possible or creates a major disruption to the workplace, though we can expect that to be more of the exception than the rule moving forward. Employers who excused essential job functions to maintain remote operations during the pandemic's peak, and who reinstate those functions along with a return to the office, may have grounds to deny telework requests. If the employer would have to eliminate essential functions for an employee with a disability—even if those functions were temporarily halted during the pandemic—this would likely not be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. See, e.g., Maffett v. City of Columbia, No. 3:19-832-MGL-KDW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178622, at *55 (D.S.C. April 19, 2021). In Maffett, the court awarded summary judgment to the employer where it had denied plaintiff's request to telework as an accommodation. One of plaintiff's essential job duties involved using specialized equipment on-site, and even though the employer had made due with telework during the pandemic, it sought to resume normal operations. The employer had no obligation to alter plaintiff's job duties, even if it had temporarily suspended some job duties during the pandemic.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250