Dive Brief:
- An economist for the Environmental Protection Agency may proceed with his lawsuit alleging that the company failed to accommodate his severe allergies, which were exacerbated by a co-worker who wore heavy perfume, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held Friday.
- According to the decision in Ali v. Regan, the plaintiff initially requested accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for his allergic reactions in the form of a private office or small conference room. The EPA allegedly countered with an offer of fully remote work, which the plaintiff rejected.
- A district court granted summary judgment to EPA, holding that the plaintiff “caused a breakdown in the interactive process.” The D.C. Circuit reversed, decided that a jury must resolve the question of whether the proposed telework accommodation was reasonable and whether EPA fulfilled its duty to engage in discussions with the plaintiff about a proper accommodation.
Dive Insight:
The details of Ali include a lengthy back-and-forth between the plaintiff and EPA management. The D.C. Circuit wrote that, in cases involving disability accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act and its private-sector equivalent, the Americans with Disabilities Act, “the employee and employer frequently need to share information to find a workable solution.”
Previously, attorneys have described this interactive process as one that can be difficult to execute correctly. The process is not always quickly resolved; in 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that an interactive process lasting nearly two years did not amount to an “undue delay” that would have denied an employee’s accommodation request.
According to the court, one of the plaintiff’s supervisors offered him an “‘immediate remedy’” to his allergic reactions in the form of relocation to an unoccupied cubicle in a different section of the workplace, but the plaintiff complained that the new cubicle also was “‘very perfumy’” and reiterated his initial accommodation request. The court said EPA did not respond to this message.
Months later, the plaintiff again asked for an accommodation. The EPA requested additional medical information and he “promptly supplied it,” per the court. This preceded the proposed remote work accommodation, which the plaintiff rejected. EPA allegedly did not respond to the plaintiff’s repeated emails requesting a private work location sent after he rejected the remote work proposal.
In the meantime, the plaintiff tried to move to a cubicle located away from his co-worker but continued to suffer symptoms. The agency also offered him an air filter, though he claimed that air filters “had not sufficed to trap his allergens in the past, so he continued to request a new office.” The plaintiff had asked the co-worker to stop wearing the perfume, but the co-worker declined to do so, the D.C. Circuit said.
While the district court determined that the plaintiff had caused a breakdown in the dialogue over the proposed accommodation, the D.C. Circuit held that “the record in this case does not establish that, as a matter of law, [the plaintiff] frustrated the interactive process and caused a breakdown in the employer-employee dialogue.”
“The central question in this case, in other words, turns on a quintessential factual dispute that needs to be resolved by a jury,” the court said. “While EPA and [the plaintiff] might have explored other accommodation options, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that any failure to do so rested solely on [the plaintiff] or that [his] conduct prevented EPA from formulating a reasonable-accommodation proposal.”
