Is an employer liable for an employee's alleged reaction to perfume worn by a customer or co-worker?

Is an employer liable for an employee's alleged reaction to perfume worn by a customer or co-worker?

An employee with a disability makes a request to work from home full time. The employer is concerned about its liability under federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws if it does not grant this request. However, it is also concerned about the lack of supervision this employee will receive at home, the possibility that other employees will make similar requests, the lack of personal interaction this employee will have with co-workers and whether the employee can adequately perform his or her essential job tasks in a remote location, even with the aid of the newest technology tools, such as webcams. Is the employer obliged to grant the request?

The short answer is 'maybe'. A federal court and a state court in Massachusetts recently addressed whether an employer has a right, in the face of an employee's known disability, to deny the employee's request to work remotely, and arrived at different conclusions based on the nature of the employee's job and the employee's disability. Mulloy v AcushnetIn Mulloy v Acushnet Co Mulloy worked as an electrical engineer for Acushnet, which manufactures and sells golf balls. In this capacity, Mulloy's job tasks included designing programmes for machines at the plant, purchasing and supervising installation of machine controls, evaluating machine capabilities, identifying mechanical and electrical changes, training and supervising maintenance personnel and supporting electrical safety programmes. Each day, Mulloy worked in a cubicle for six hours and spent two hours on the plant floor, until his exposure to chemicals on the plant floor caused him severe dizziness, throat and chest tightness and discomfort, and fevers. As a result of these ailments, Mulloy decreased his exposure to rooms where the chemicals were present, but ultimately was unable to work in any of the plant buildings and was transferred 15 miles away to the company headquarters. Subsequently, the employer determined that Mulloy could not perform remotely the essential duties of his position and terminated his employment.

Mulloy sued under Sections 12101 and following of the Americans With Disability Act (42 USC) and the Massachusetts Disability Law. In granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the federal district court analyzed whether Mulloy's presence at the plant was necessary to fulfil the essential duties of his job. Mulloy argued that working in another location was possible with the use of a webcam and other communication tools, through which he could perform at least some of his functions remotely. However, the court rejected Mulloy's argument, holding that his case was not an exception to the general rule that physical presence at the job site is an essential function of most jobs. Stating that "[t]he question is not simply whether [the plaintiff] may be able to perform aspects of each essential function, but whether he can do so adequately", the court concluded that:

"it is essential ...