2 ms·

> It seems like you've thought about this quite a bit — what would the reasoning be? I have not, no, this is just guesswork, but the reasoning is how much of a

> It seems like you've thought about this quite a bit — what would the reasoning be? I have not, no, this is just guesswork, but the reasoning is how much of an unknown quantity the covid risk still is. If Bob's doctor says it's not safe for Bob to return to the office because Bob's wife had a pulmonary embolism two years ago, who's to say the doctor is wrong? If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review? But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case, just that conjuring up the specter of medical necessity might change things if they were only loosely committed. And I don't think this is duplicitous: I think a very likely outcome for a lot of big corporations will be a "mandatory" return to the office which, in practice, is so riddled with exemptions that everyone who wants to wfh is allowed to.

chris11 5y ago
> But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case I'm not a lawyer, or a manager, but I'm not quite convinced. I think OP should have that conversation with their doctor first. Claiming to need WFH to be safe is sounds related to some anti-Covid vaccination arguments. If the company cares about safety they are probably going to take reopening safely seriously, if they don't take Covid seriously they won't like accepting the initial request. Though the eeoc does say having any WFH program makes it more likely it could be a reasonable accommodation. And I think my employer is already thinking about accommodations when reopening. Getting WFH might be a good possibility if their doctor agrees it's needed. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasonable-accommodation https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasona...
- ineptech 5y ago
  I clarified this down-thread but let me say it again here: I don't mean to suggest anyone make anything up, I meant to suggest that being afraid of getting covid is a reasonable reason to want to wfh.
michaelt 5y ago
> If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review? I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably sure you can't get 'reasonable accommodations' of much substance for a secret medical condition.
- ineptech 5y ago
  What's "reasonable" depends on cost. Suppose I have concerns about eye strain. Is it reasonable for me to demand that my employer install skylights? Probably not. Is it reasonable for me to demand a brighter desk lamp for my cube? Probably so. And when the cost is negligible, I don't think I should need a doctor's note; "I want a brighter lamp for health reasons" ought to be enough, even if my concerns are based on nothing more than a Facebook post I read. The crux of the issue, then, is whether the cost to OP's employer to allow OP to wfh is negligible or not. And I am assuming OP's position would be that their performance last year proves the cost is negligible, not that they demand an accommodation despite the cost.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    I believe the framework of "reasonable accommodation" only applies in the context of employees with disabilities. I'll again say that I'm not an employment lawyer, but I do work in the accessibility world and have only heard "reasonable accommodations" discussed in regard to the ADA. There may be some broader context where this framework also applies, but absent that there wouldn't be a 'hook' to get it to apply to COVID-related WFH.

chris11 5y ago

> But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case I'm not a lawyer, or a manager, but I'm not quite convinced. I think OP should have that conversation with their doctor first. Claiming to need WFH to be safe is sounds related to some anti-Covid vaccination arguments. If the company cares about safety they are probably going to take reopening safely seriously, if they don't take Covid seriously they won't like accepting the initial request. Though the eeoc does say having any WFH program makes it more likely it could be a reasonable accommodation. And I think my employer is already thinking about accommodations when reopening. Getting WFH might be a good possibility if their doctor agrees it's needed. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasonable-accommodation https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasona...

ineptech 5y ago
I clarified this down-thread but let me say it again here: I don't mean to suggest anyone make anything up, I meant to suggest that being afraid of getting covid is a reasonable reason to want to wfh.

michaelt 5y ago

> If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review? I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably sure you can't get 'reasonable accommodations' of much substance for a secret medical condition.

ineptech 5y ago
What's "reasonable" depends on cost. Suppose I have concerns about eye strain. Is it reasonable for me to demand that my employer install skylights? Probably not. Is it reasonable for me to demand a brighter desk lamp for my cube? Probably so. And when the cost is negligible, I don't think I should need a doctor's note; "I want a brighter lamp for health reasons" ought to be enough, even if my concerns are based on nothing more than a Facebook post I read. The crux of the issue, then, is whether the cost to OP's employer to allow OP to wfh is negligible or not. And I am assuming OP's position would be that their performance last year proves the cost is negligible, not that they demand an accommodation despite the cost.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  I believe the framework of "reasonable accommodation" only applies in the context of employees with disabilities. I'll again say that I'm not an employment lawyer, but I do work in the accessibility world and have only heard "reasonable accommodations" discussed in regard to the ADA. There may be some broader context where this framework also applies, but absent that there wouldn't be a 'hook' to get it to apply to COVID-related WFH.