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
© 2025 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
- 1Which Legal Tech Jobs Are on the Rise, and Which Aren't, with Jared Coseglia
- 2Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
- 3SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
- 4Sidley Hires Paul Hastings Energy Finance Partner in Houston
- 5Potential Pitfalls in Arbitrating Religious Disputes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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