10th Circuit won't second-guess employer's decision not to grant telework

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has made telework much more common for many employees. As we begin to return to normalcy, workers may question whether they still need to be physically present at the workplace when telework has proven feasible. In most situations, the question is still up to you as the employer to answer. If you believe physical presence is valuable to the organization or the employee's work, you may require the individual to work in person.

The principle is highlighted in a recent decision from the 10th Circuit, in which a former employee claimed the employer had failed to accommodate her request for a flexible, work-from-home schedule.

Schedule accommodation, but with conditions

Joan Unrein was a clinical dietitian who became legally blind because of a form of macular degeneration. As a consequence, she could no longer drive herself to work, which involved a 120-mile daily roundtrip commute. She asked the hospital to permit her to work a flexible schedule dependent on her ability to secure rides to and from work. The hospital initially agreed to the schedule, but with conditions:

• She was required to communicate with her supervisor about any necessary schedule changes; and
• She was expected to be physically present at the hospital at least 32 hours per week.

The hospital informed Unrein her on-site presence was required to provide quality dietitian services and ensure patient care wasn't compromised. It also stated it reserved the right to end the flexible work schedule if it concluded at any time the accommodation: