Don’t let these three manager mistakes undermine your company’s business judgment on ADA essential job functions.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against “qualified individuals with disabilities.” A qualified individual can perform the essential functions of their job with or without accommodation. While not the be-all-and-end-all, an employer’s business judgment about what job functions are essential carries substantial weight under the ADA. Still, courts often consider whether a particular job function is essential on a case-by-case basis.

Last night, I read a federal court opinion highlighting three ways employers and their managers can create uncertainty about which job functions are essential.

1. Creating exceptions to work rules.

The case I read involved an employee who was diagnosed as a “pre-diabetic” who wanted to work from home to avoid exposure to COVID-19. The company permitted some employees to work remotely but argued that it was essential for remote workers to have sufficient internet speed — at least 10 MB — to do so. It was undisputed that the plaintiff’s home internet did not meet the defendant’s minimum requirements. However, there was also evidence that the plaintiff’s supervisor informed her, “maybe [her internet] could still be used” despite the slower upload speed. The plaintiff further claimed that she would have otherwise upgraded her home internet. Therefore, there was a question about whether 10 MB internet speed was essential for remote work.

2. Poor communication.

The company also argued that remote workers had to be “self-sufficient,” and the plaintiff struggled with some of her workload, often relying on coworkers to complete her assignments.

But here’s the thing. The plaintiff testified that her manager never told her that she was not self-sufficient. Plus, there was evidence that the plaintiff had a record of good performance, awards, and recognition during her employment, including being ranked in the top 10% of her job classification.

3. Shortsighted decision-making.

The defendant also contended that the plaintiff did not have a sufficient workload when working remotely. Specifically, the company highlighted how one of the plaintiff’s three customers did not allow remote work to handle their accounts, which would have left the plaintiff with idle hands.

However, the court noted that the defendant had previously trained the plaintiff to handle clients other than her assigned clients. Therefore, the company could have assigned the plaintiff additional clients or adjusted the plaintiff’s client assignments to ensure the plaintiff had a sufficient workload while working remotely. Additionally, there was evidence that workload had decreased across the board for the plaintiff’s coworkers, undermining the defendant’s position that having a sufficient workload was an essential job function.

Ultimately, essential functions are job duties so fundamental to the position that they are why the job exists. However, managers being overly rigid, poorly communicating, and creating exceptions are three ways they leave courts questioning the company’s judgment.