Update
The Court of Appeals issued a decision, reversing the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the EPA and remanded the case, noting that “requiring an employee who has successfully worked in the office for years to leave the workplace permanently as the sole means for accommodating a disability … risks running afoul of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA’s integrative mandates.”
On July 24, 2023, DREDF and the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association along with Communication First, Disability Rights Bar Association (DRBA), Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services, Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and RespectAbility submitted an amicus brief in a case called Ali v. Regan (No. 22-5124) before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a disabled employee whose employer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA) denied his request for on-site disability accommodations and instead provided him with a take-it-or-leave it accommodation of 100% remote work.
Mr. Ali, the plaintiff in this case, has severe allergies that the EPA had accommodated for years while he worked on site. When an employee who consistently wore heavy perfume was placed in the cubicle next to his, he experienced detrimental effects on his health. The EPA offered him the accommodation of 100% telework. He refused because he wanted to continue to work on-site as he always had, and tried to engage the EPA in accommodation discussions that ultimately failed. Mr. Ali filed a disability discrimination case against the EPA in district court under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The amicus brief filed on behalf of Mr. Ali argued that allowing employers to impose remote work on disabled employees who want to work on site with reasonable accommodations will result in the segregation and isolation of workers with disabilities.