Suit Shows That Employers Must Engage in Interactive Dialogue

April 28, 2023

Return-to-office Mandates and Related Woes


By Trevor Brice, Esq.

As pressure increases on companies to have an in-person presence post-pandemic, many companies have issued return-to-office mandates. Some of these, if they are not heeded by employees currently working remotely, can result in severe penalties, including loss of compensation, bonuses, even termination.



While these companies can impose these penalties on their wayward employees, it is now the time to remember one of the reasons why employees request to work from home: as a disability- or age-related accommodation.


On March 28, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced suit against an employer who disciplined an employee in relation to one of these policies. This serves as a reminder of what employers’ responsibilities are to employees with age- or disability-related accommodation requests, despite being able to pressure employees to come back to the office.

 

COVID-19 Policies and Protected Class

In general, employers can impose any sort of discipline or policy on their employees. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, specifically that employers cannot discipline or impose policy that is either directly or indirectly based on the employee’s protected class (e.g., race, color, disability, age, sex, or ancestry).


As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, most employers are setting up policies mandating that employees come back to the office, some of them with penalties attached if employees do not comply. For example, Apple recently threatened disciplinary action for employees that are not coming into the office at least three days per week. Policies like these are facially neutral and non-discriminatory in their purpose. Every employer has a legitimate business interest in enforcing attendance, and policies like these have become more commonplace.


However, these policies run the risk of disability or even age discrimination. Some employers might ask why this is the case if they are enforcing a neutral policy. The usual issue will be that a policy like this will be imposed on an employee who is older or has disabilities that make them more at risk of contracting COVID-19. As such, when a policy like this is imposed, the employee will ask, due to their disability or age, to continue to work from home as a reasonable accommodation. If and when this happens, employers have a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with the requesting employee and try to fashion an accommodation that will allow the worker to continue their work without undue hardship to the employer.


As long as this conversation, the interactive dialogue, is had with the requesting employee, it will be difficult for the employee to say that they have been subject to discrimination or that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. However, the problem arises when the employer does not initiate this conversation.

 

The EEOC Lawsuit

On March 28, the EEOC sued a company for allegedly denying repeated requests by an employee for remote work as a reasonable accommodation due to the increased risk of COVID-19 and further was alleged to violate the law by retaliating against the employee for taking medical leave to avoid exposure.


The facts in the case, EEOC v. Total Systems Services Inc., involve a customer-service representative who repeatedly requested to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation starting at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 to decrease the risk of her exposure to COVID-19. The employer, in response, without engaging in an interactive dialogue with the disabled employee, repeatedly denied the requests despite granting remote-work requests to other employees.


While there has not been a ruling in this case yet, it is clear why the EEOC sued the company in question. As a reminder, when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee and attempt to come up with a reasonable accommodation that does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Here, the employer did not attempt to engage in an interactive dialogue, denying the request (in this case, repeatedly) outright.


Further, even if the company had attempted to engage in an interactive dialogue with the disabled employee (which it did not), the employer would still potentially be liable because it would be more than likely that the employer could not show that the accommodation request was an undue hardship.


As the EEOC’s lawsuit notes, most of the employee’s department was allowed to work remotely, despite denying the employee’s request to also work remotely. The company could have possibly shown that the employee’s request was an undue hardship if other employees in the employee’s department were not allowed to work remotely or if a compelling reason was given why the employee and other employees in her department needed to be on site. However, this was not the case here.

 

Conclusion

As it becomes more and more commonplace for employers to require their employees to come into the office post-pandemic, there will increasingly be more litigation from employees who suffer from disabilities or are older, who ask to be given accommodation to work from home in order to avoid COVID-19 exposure.


As shown above, employers, once a reasonable accommodation has been made, must engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee to see if there is a reasonable accommodation that can be granted without undue hardship. It is possible to show that the employee’s request is an undue hardship, but there needs to be an interactive dialogue with the employee first.


If your company is imposing these return-to-work policies and it is questionable whether there is an undue hardship with an employee’s request for a reasonable-accommodation request, it is prudent to seek out representation from employment counsel.


This article was published in the May 1, 2023 edition of BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website!

When Bias Creeps into Independent Investigations It All Becomes Tainted.

April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.