On April 17, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published additional guidance for employers regarding the issues they are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest advice focuses on the reasonable accommodation requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).
How Should Employers Handle Reasonable Accommodation Requests During the Pandemic?
Employers are still required to provide reasonable accommodations to their employees, so long as they do not pose an undue hardship on the employer, meaning the reasonable accommodation does not pose a significant difficulty or expense to the employer. Reasonable accommodations that are specific to COVID-19 must be treated like all other reasonable accommodation requests.
When an employer receives a reasonable accommodation request, the employer may still ask questions or seek medical documentation to determine whether the employee has a disability as defined by the ADA. Possible inquiries include: (1) how the employee’s disability creates a limitation; (2) how the requested accommodation will assist the employee in dealing with the limitation; (3) whether a different accommodation could achieve the same goal; and (4) how the requested accommodation will enable the employee to continue performing his or her essential functions.
The urgency and unknowns caused by the pandemic mean that completing a thorough investigation prior to providing a reasonable accommodation may not be possible. The need for reasonable accommodations may also vary as the government’s restrictions change. Employers may provide temporary accommodations to address these challenges. The temporary accommodations may have an end date, such as a specific date or a triggering event (i.e., when the employee returns to the workplace). The employer may also provide the reasonable accommodation immediately, while awaiting the relevant medical documentation. Employers should be flexible and recognize that reasonable accommodations with a time limit may need to be extended.
Employers should also be proactive and think about the reasonable accommodations that may be requested when employees return to the workplace, given that the work environment will likely be different from before the pandemic. Employers can ask their employees now for any reasonable accommodations that they anticipate needing in the future, and work to address those requests preemptively.
Changes to an employer’s financial situation may render certain accommodation requests unreasonable in the current environment. Employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations that pose either a significant difficulty or a significant expense. What constitutes a significant difficulty or expense now may not have qualified before the pandemic. When a requested accommodation poses an undue hardship on the employer, the employer should work with the employee to determine if an alternative accommodation would be feasible and effective.
Employers should remind all employees that harassment and discrimination remain illegal, and encourage supervisors and managers to take an active role looking for, stopping, and reporting harassment and discrimination based on race, national origin, color, sex, religion, age (over 40), disability, or genetic information.
What Should Employers Do When Employees Can Return to Work?
Employers may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, so long as doing so is related to the employee’s job and consistent with medical necessity. This standard is met where employees must be excluded if they have a medical condition that would pose a direct risk to health or safety, which includes COVID-19. Employers should abide by the CDC and public health authorities’ advice regarding return-to-work screening procedures. When implementing screening and potential exclusion of employees from the workplace, employers must be careful not to engage in discriminatory conduct based on employees’ protected characteristics.
Employers should also provide modified or alternative personal protective gear and equipment when requested, so long as doing so does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. This may include non-latex gloves, modified face masks for interpreters, gowns designed for individuals in wheelchairs, or modified equipment for religious garb.
The updated EEOC guidance can be found here.
For more information, contact the Labor & Employment attorneys at Lewis Roca.
Tags: COVID-19 Rapid Response Team, Labor and EmploymentAbout This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam