The recent $22.1 million verdict in the case of Billesdon vs. Wells Fargo Securities has cast a spotlight on the increasing legal risks companies face when they ignore work-from-home (WFH) requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark case underscores the critical need for employers to understand their obligations under the ADA, particularly in the evolving landscape of remote work.

The case of Billesdon vs. Wells Fargo Securities

In this high-profile case, a former managing director at Wells Fargo Securities, Robert Billesdon, was awarded a substantial sum after alleging that he was laid off for requesting to work from home as a disability accommodation. Billesdon’s impairment required him to have frequent and immediate access to a restroom, leading him to request a WFH accommodation before pandemic restrictions were lifted and employees were recalled to the office.

The jury found that Wells Fargo’s managers didn’t adequately engage in the interactive process required by the ADA to explore reasonable accommodations for Billesdon. Instead, they allegedly pushed back on his request and ultimately selected his role for elimination. This failure to engage in “genuine discourse” about the accommodation request, and the preemptive selection of his role for elimination, were pivotal in the jury’s decision, which deemed these actions as violations of both the ADA and state law​​.

Moreover, the jury awarded a significant portion of that sum for punitive damages and emotional distress. That indicates substantial sympathy among juries for cases where the employer denies WFH requests. Having served as an expert witness on several such cases, I can attest that jury trials tend to lead to significant awards for employees who requested flexible work accommodations.

Legal obligations under the ADA

The ADA mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, ensuring they can perform their job functions without undue hardship on the employer. These accommodations can range from physical adjustments in the workplace to modifications in work schedules, including the possibility of remote work.

Accommodations must be made not only for physical health challenges but mental health conditions as well. As Keith Sonderling, commissioner of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), explained in an interview with me, “Employers must engage in an interactive process with employees who request accommodations for mental health conditions. If an employee is diagnosed with a mental health issue, the employer is obligated to consider accommodations, which could include remote work.”

According to the Job Accommodation Network, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Labor, the interactive process involves recognizing an accommodation request, gathering relevant information, exploring possible options, implementing the chosen accommodation, and monitoring its effectiveness.

Courts and enforcement authorities typically disfavor any party that causes a breakdown in this process. If an employer fails to engage sincerely in this process, it can be seen as evidence of discrimination. Conversely, if an employee abandons the process, the employer may be deemed to have met its ADA obligations.

The risks of noncompliance

Ignoring or mishandling accommodation requests, particularly for WFH, can expose employers to significant legal risks. The Billesdon case is a stark reminder of the potential consequences. Companies may face hefty fines, legal fees, and damages, not to mention the reputational harm that can accompany such lawsuits.

Ignoring or mishandling accommodation requests, particularly for WFH, can expose employers to significant legal risks.

The pandemic has shifted the work environment, making remote work a more viable and often preferred option for many employees, including those with disabilities. As organizations transition back to in-office operations, they must carefully consider WFH requests and other accommodations to comply with ADA requirements.

Best practices for employers

To mitigate legal risks and foster an inclusive work environment, employers should adopt best practices when handling accommodation requests.

Proactive engagement: Initiate the interactive process promptly upon receiving an accommodation request. Engage in open and sincere discussions with the employee to explore all feasible options.

Document the process: Keep thorough records of all communications, decisions, and actions taken during the accommodation process. This documentation can be crucial if the process is ever called into question.

Educate managers: Ensure that managers and HR personnel are well versed in ADA requirements and the importance of the interactive process. Regular training can help prevent missteps that could lead to legal trouble.

Evaluate WFH requests fairly: Assess each WFH request on its merits, considering the specific needs of the employee and the nature of their job. Avoid blanket policies that categorically deny remote work without considering individual circumstances.

Stay informed on legal developments: The legal landscape around remote work and disability accommodations is evolving. Stay informed about new rulings, regulations, and best practices to ensure compliance.

Sonderling emphasizes the importance of training for managers and HR professionals to handle these requests properly: “It’s crucial for employers to understand that they can’t dismiss mental health accommodation requests out of hand. Failure to engage in the interactive process can lead to significant legal repercussions.”

Conclusion

The case of Billesdon vs. Wells Fargo Securities teaches a critical lesson for employers about the growing legal risks of ignoring WFH requests under the ADA. By proactively engaging in the interactive process, documenting decisions, and training managers, companies can better navigate accommodation requests and avoid costly legal battles. As the workplace continues to evolve, prioritizing ADA compliance and fostering an inclusive environment will be key to both legal protection and employee well-being​​.