Employees Do Not Always Get the Accommodation They Prefer
So, you have an employee who is allergic to nearly everything, and constantly complains about co-workers being too "perfumy." He insists on having his own cubicle, and then demands a separate office with door. He even brings in a doctor's note that indicates how sensitive the employee is to allergens like carpet, copy machines, and other scents. What do you do?
A recent case out of Washington DC gives a case book example on how to patiently and properly deal with accommodation requests by persistent employees.
In that case, an economist from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) complained about a co-workers "perfumes" and scents. Over the years, they moved the employee, allowed him to change offices, and get cubicles of his choice. At one point they even allowed him to telework from his home. But he preferred working at the EPA office.
Later, when the EPA was remodeling the building, the complaints about co-workers and offensive scents increased. This time the employee demanded a separate office, (not a cubicle) with its own door. The EPA met with the employee several times and gave him multiple options, but he was insistent that due to the ever present scents, he had to have a separate office.
Having considered all the options, the EPA advised the employee that the best option was to have the employee again work from home. That way he could avoid co-worker scents. Plus, they pointed out, any office given to him would be using "shared air" from the ventilation system.
The employee flatly rejected that proposed accommodation. He then sued the employer saying they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not engaging in the interactive process and giving him the accommodation he wanted.
The federal court rejected the employee's claim. The court first pointed out that an employee does not get the accommodation they want. Instead, the law is clear that any accommodation by an employer must be "reasonable" and "effective." The EEOC Guidance on Accommodations itself says that,
“the employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations and may choose the less expensive accommodation or the accommodation that is easier for it to provide.”
The court also stated that the break down in the interactive process was squarely on the employee, who flatly rejected the EPA's proposed accommodations.
Again, this case highlighted the need for all employers to genuinely consider any employee's request for accommodations in the workplace. It may take weeks and months, and you may need to get doctor's advice on how best to accommodate an individual. But the bottom line is (1) you have to engage in the interactive process in good faith, and (2) any accommodation offered must be a reasonable effort to accommodate, not necessarily the specific one the employee wants.
See Ali v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (10.19.2020, D.C. D.C.)