Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
đ Employee Refused to Return to the Office Over âMold.â The Courtâs Response? Breathe Deep and Report Back to Work.
A Detroit nonprofit employee said the air in her office made her sick after a flood. She claimed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) let her work from home instead. Her doctor agreed she should avoid mold but never said she couldnât come in. After a short remote stint, she returned to full-time, in-person work. A year later, she turned down a contractor role and sued. The Sixth Circuit said the employer handled it exactly right.
TL;DR: The Sixth Circuit held that the employee could not perform essential onsite duties remotely, so she was not qualified for her job with her proposed accommodation. Her ADA discrimination claim failed because remote work was not a reasonable accommodation when onsite duties were essential.
The backstory: flood, symptoms, and two doctorâs notes
After a pipe burst in the employerâs office building, an employee complained of sinus problems and headaches she blamed on mold. Her first doctorâs note said she should not be exposed to mold but did not restrict her from coming to work. When management asked for a note showing she could not work in the building, the second note stated, âI would recommend [she] works off site.â
The employer allowed her to work from home for about three weeks, reduced her hours so another employee could handle onsite file work required for a county contract, and made clear the arrangement was temporary. She later returned to full-time, in-person work. About a year later, the organization, facing pandemic-related budget cuts, offered her a contractor role that she declined. That ended her employment.
The court: the ADA doesnât require rewriting essential job duties
The Sixth Circuit agreed that the employeeâs job required in-person work. A core part of her position involved maintaining hard-copy case files for government audits. Those files were stored in locked cabinets and had to be reviewed onsite, sometimes without notice. The employee testified, âmaintaining the [case] file is important,â and admitted that if she worked remotely for an extended period, someone else would have to handle the onsite work.
That was the key issue. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that enable employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs. It does not require an employer to remove or reassign those essential functions to others. Because onsite file management was essential, and because the doctorâs notes never made remote work medically necessary, the court found that extended remote work was not a reasonable accommodation.
The court also emphasized that the employer went beyond what the ADA required by offering a temporary remote arrangement and adjusting the employeeâs hours while another person handled onsite work. That short-term flexibility showed good faith in the interactive process, even though the employer had no obligation to continue it indefinitely.
Takeaways for employers
â
Define essential functions clearly. Explain why certain tasks require onsite work and document those reasons.
â
Ask for medical necessity, not preference. Employers may request medical support that connects restrictions to job duties.
â
Temporary flexibility helps. Offering short-term remote work can satisfy the duty to engage in the interactive process without redefining essential functions.
â
No duty to reassign essential work. The ADA requires accommodation, not elimination, of key job duties.
â
Document your process. Detailed communication about accommodations can make all the difference if a dispute arises later.
The final word
The ADA protects employees who cannot perform their jobs without accommodation, not those who simply prefer to work differently. When an employer defines essential functions, handles accommodation requests in good faith, and supports its decisions with evidence, courts will back it.
Apparently, even when mold is in the air.