Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co.
752 F.3d 634
6th Cir.2014Background
- Jane Harris, an IBS-diagnosed resale steel buyer at Ford, sought telecommuting to manage symptoms.
- Ford discouraged remote work and limited telecommuting; attendance was deemed essential for team problem-solving.
- Harris began telecommuting informally but was not officially approved; absences accrued and performance concerns followed.
- In 2009 Harris formally requested telecommuting as a disability accommodation; Ford denied, offering alternatives (cubicle near restroom, internal transfer).
- Harris filed an EEOC discrimination charge in April 2009; Ford then intensified supervision and evaluated her under a PEP after meetings.
- Harris was terminated in September 2009 after failing to meet 30-day PEP objectives; district court granted Ford summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris was a qualified individual with/without telecommuting | Harris could perform duties remotely; attendance not essential. | Physical presence and in-person teamwork are essential functions of the resale buyer role. | Genuine dispute exists on qualification; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether telecommuting is a reasonable accommodation for Harris | Telecommuting could enable Harris to perform all duties effectively from home. | Resale buyers require regular, face-to-face collaboration and access to information during core hours. | Genuine dispute regarding reasonableness of telecommuting as accommodation |
| Whether Harris's termination was pretext for ADA retaliation | Negative reviews and termination soon after EEOC charge show retaliation. | Performance deficiencies and a failed PEP prove legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. | Record supports potential retaliation; summary judgment reversed on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 1997) (telecommuting may be reasonable only in unusual cases where all duties can be done at home)
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (excessive absenteeism generally defeats qualification unless unusual case)
- Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2012) (attendance sometimes required for teamwork; regular attendance often essential)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for ADA failure-to-accommodate including essential functions and undue hardship)
- Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (employee must be disabled and accommodated unless undue hardship)
- Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (legacy on reasonable accommodations and undue hardship factors)