Takeaways for Employers

  • Essential Job Duties Take Precedence
  • Clear, Accurate Job Descriptions Are Critical
  • Engage in the Interactive Process
  • Document Everything
  • Consistency in Application Is Key

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently held that an employee’s request to work entirely on a remote basis was not reasonable where some essential job duties needed to be performed in the office. The case, Castelino v. Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, LLC, offers helpful guidance for employers in evaluating remote work requests from employees with disabilities.

In Castelino, the plaintiff was hired on May 29, 2020, as an administrative assistant in the real estate practice group of the defendant law firm. When the plaintiff was hired, many of the law firm’s practice groups worked on a remote basis. The real estate group, however, continued to work from the office as certain essential job duties could only be performed from the office, such as maintaining physical files, scanning client documents, meeting with clients to obtain “ink signatures,” and notarizing documents. 

After working for a short period in the office, the plaintiff learned that the building where she worked included a COVID testing facility. The plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with diabetes and asthma, was concerned about being exposed to COVID and requested to work exclusively on a remote basis. The plaintiff’s request was denied, but the employer did allow the plaintiff to work from home occasionally. Less than two months after she was hired, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated due to performance issues. 

The plaintiff brought claims against her employer under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all counts and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The plaintiff has filed a petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court that is pending.

In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Court stressed that the plaintiff’s request to work exclusively on a remote basis would render her unable to perform certain essential job duties that could only be performed from the office. Therefore, the Court held that the plaintiff’s accommodation request was not reasonable. Further, because the requested accommodation was unreasonable as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims also were dismissed. 

In deciding what constitutes essential job duties, the Court stated that they are “the fundamental duties to be performed in the position in question but not functions that are merely marginal.” The Court further stated that while it is a case-specific inquiry, deference must be given to employer’s judgment about what functions were essential, taking into consideration the job description and how the job is performed in practice. 

Considerations for Employers

This decision underscores several key considerations for evaluating employee requests to work remotely. 

  1. It’s important to have accurate and well-written job descriptions that clearly delineate the essential job duties and whether the position is office-based, remote or hybrid. 
  2. The case illustrates that remote work does not have to be automatically granted and should not be automatically denied. Instead, employers should engage in a meaningful interactive process with the employee to determine what types of accommodations may be reasonable including, for example, providing reasonable accommodations that allow the employee to work from the office. Employers may also consider allowing the employee to work remotely to some degree and for some time to evaluate its effectiveness. 
  3. Lastly, employers must be consistent when enforcing in-office requirements and document the interactive process including discussions about essential job functions and reasonable accommodations that have been discussed and offered. 

For more information about work from home policies, please contact:

Nick Zaino
Partner
[email protected]
203.578.4270

Brice Ashford
Associate
[email protected]
203.784.3156

This information is for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not establish any attorney-client relationship.