Dive Brief:
- Professional services firm Aon allegedly fired an employee because she has attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, after she requested and received an accommodation to work in the office, according to a July 23 lawsuit.
- Per the complaint in Gomez v. Aon Private Risk Management Insurance Agency, Inc., the employee worked as an account specialist. She alleged that a recruiter told her she could work in the office full time to accommodate her ADHD, but after she was hired, she was allegedly informed the role was mostly remote and full-time in-office work wasn’t possible.
- Because of her ADHD, the employee had trouble performing and learning effectively, she alleged. She emailed her manager, who allegedly told her this may not be a “fit environment” for her, and placed her on a performance improvement plan. She formally requested an accommodation but was fired shortly after the request was approved and she began working in the office, the lawsuit said.
Dive Insight:
The employee filed her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging she experienced discrimination and harassment and was ultimately fired due to her ADHD. She also claimed she was initially denied a reasonable accommodation and retaliated against because she asked for one.
Aon did not respond to a request for a comment.
Compliance issues surrounding reasonable accommodation are always evolving, even as the ADA marks its 35th anniversary.
Remote work, or “telework,” stands out as an example, although the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long recognized it as a reasonable accommodation, according to an EEOC guidance.
While the Aon lawsuit offers a twist — the employee alleged she was discriminated against because she requested an accommodation to work in the office, not remotely — the best practices for staying ADA compliant are the same.
One critical step is for the employer and the employee to engage in an “interactive process,” so the employer can understand why an accommodation is needed and what alternatives are possible if the request poses an undue hardship, the EEOC explains.
A $22.1 million jury award in July 2024 against Wells Fargo shows how costly it can be to deny a request without engaging in an interactive process or fully exploring the issues.
In the Wells Fargo case, a director asked for an accommodation to work from home because his impairment required frequent and quick access to a restroom. His managers allegedly eliminated his role before the matter was resolved. The judge determined there was a dispute over whether Wells Fargo engaged in “genuine discourse” about the employee’s request and said it would have to be resolved by a jury.
Employers should also keep in mind that, while allowing an employee to change work locations can be a reasonable accommodation, they may have to modify a work rule or policy for this to happen, EEOC’s guidance points out.
This issue arose a few years ago, when three City of Berkeley, California, commission members asked to attend meetings remotely from their homes to accommodate their disabilities. The city said they could, but allegedly only if they publicly listed their home address as a meeting place and let the public inside to attend, ostensibly because of a state rule.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Berkeley for violating the ADA. Under the settlement, the city changed its policy to allow the requirements to be waived for disability-related concerns.
In the Aon case, the employee said she explained to her manager that her ADHD kept her from performing to her full potential because she was working from home. She twice asked for an accommodation to work in the office full time, but the requests were denied, and she was allegedly told the policy only allowed her to work in the office one day a week.
She then submitted a formal request and submitted medical documentation. Although the request was approved, and her performance allegedly improved, she was still fired, the lawsuit said.
