While some employees with chemical sensitivity may be entitled to work from home, that remedy is not always available, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has ruled in Core v. Champaign County, 2012 WL 4959444 (Oct. 17, 2012).
The court had ruled on July 30 in Core v. Champaign County that employees with such sensitivity may be entitled to workplace accommodations, but allowed Core’s case to continue.
Pamela Core has asthma and a severe chemical sensitivity, which a co-worker’s perfume triggered. She requested permission to work from home. Instead, her employer said it would ask employees to refrain from wearing the bothersome perfume, give her a private office and bathroom and allow her to leave the building as needed.
She sued, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court determined that a telecommuting arrangement could be a reasonable accommodation for an employee with chemical sensitivity, allowing her case to continue.
However, when the court later reviewed Core’s specific situation, it granted summary judgment for the employer. It determined that before the ADA Amendments Act, Core had no disability. After the amendments to the law, which expanded the definition of “disability,” she may have been covered by the definition, but it didn’t matter.
Core’s position required her to meet with clients, inspect and certify in-home daycare facilities, conduct and attend training sessions and input information into a state database accessible only from the worksite. Telecommuting for someone with these responsibilities is not reasonable, the court concluded.
Furthermore, the employer’s proposed accommodations — which Core rejected — were reasonable.
For additional information about disability accommodations, see Thompson’s employment law library, including the ADA Compliance Guide.