Background
Albert Hayes, a contract systems administrator for GStek, Incorporated working at Fort Polk, requested full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation for his autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. The Army, which controlled the contract terms, determined that full-time telework was not in its best interests. GStek offered a partial accommodation of working from home two to three days per week, but Hayes continued to demand full-time remote work. After a mental breakdown and subsequent absenteeism, GStek terminated Hayes. Hayes sued GStek under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation, and also sued the Army, which was dismissed. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for GStek, finding Hayes was not a qualified individual and that his other claims failed.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo, accepting the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true but requiring plausible claims. For the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court found that in-person attendance was an essential function of Hayes’s job, citing the Army’s judgment and the general consensus that regular work-site attendance is essential. The court noted that temporary telework during the pandemic did not permanently alter the essential functions of the job. Because full-time telework would require relieving Hayes of an essential function, it was not a reasonable accommodation. The court also found that GStek had already provided a reasonable accommodation by allowing partial remote work. For the discrimination claim, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and found Hayes failed to establish he was qualified for the job. For the retaliation claim, the court found the three-month interval between the accommodation request and termination was not sufficiently close to establish causation, and further noted that a failed accommodation request cannot support a retaliation claim if the employee is not qualified.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that employers are not obligated to grant full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation when in-person attendance is an essential function of the position, even for employees with disabilities. It clarifies that temporary pandemic-era remote work policies do not permanently redefine job requirements.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download