News of Amazon mandating workers return to the office (RTO) 5 days a week continues to make its mark as more employers follow suit and employees make their displeasure known. But RTO isn’t as straightforward as some employers might think.
A court case filed in Arizona proves that employees will push back on this policy. A Lexology blog featured the case of Bell Road Tire and Auto LLC, d/b/a/ Big O Tires and one of its employees. Big O Tires implemented a 100% RTO policy for all employees. When the company allegedly denied a disabled employee an accommodation, the employee filed a retaliation complaint with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The complaint filed with the EEOC triggered an investigation where the EEOC found the employer’s refusal to discuss a reasonable accommodation with the disabled employee violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to this violation, Big O Tires did not keep the employee’s medical records separate from their personnel file, an ADA violation.
Ripple Effects
A settlement was reached between Big O Tires and the EEOC. This included payment of $64,500 to the employee and terms to implement a number of changes under the terms of the settlement.
- Appoint an ADA coordinator to manage all ADA-related issues.
- Update and distribute ADA policies to all Big O Tire employees.
- Offer added Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training for supervisors and HR personnel.
- Establish a priority placement program for employees seeking reassignment.
- Regularly report to the EEOC on ADA and retaliation.
*Lexology
Message to HR Personnel
The decision of the Big O Tire case holds a cautionary tale for all employers. HR personnel must remain vigilant in their legal obligations to employees, particularly when looking to implement a rigid RTO mandate. Requests for reasonable accommodation must be taken seriously, including engagement with the employee to consider the request for accommodation and if possible, alternatives exist. Not holding these discussions is a disservice to employees and could result in bad press and lawsuits that will likely cost more in time and resources than the original accommodation request.
The ability to stay flexible in these requests is important in part because the courts look at complaints about accommodation on a case-by-case basis. The courts have refused to dismiss cases where disabled workers looked to work at home as a reasonable accommodation. A more flexible approach is also less likely to alienate workers and could help with retention efforts.
Additionally, employers are still legally responsible for maintaining employee confidentiality by keeping medical and personnel files separate. As the Big O Tire case shows, failure to do so will result in fines and penalties under the ADA. Implementing compliance training for all management and HR personnel could be a worthwhile endeavor.
