Dive Brief:

• A jury awarded $22.1 million Friday to a former Wells Fargo Securities managing director who alleged he was laid off after requesting to work from home as a disability accommodation (Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, Inc.).
• The employee’s impairment mandated frequent and quick access to a restroom, so he preemptively requested the accommodation before pandemic restrictions were lifted and workers recalled to the office. 
• His managers, however, allegedly pushed back and selected his role for elimination before the matter was resolved. The jury determined this amounted to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law.

Dive Insight:

A Wells Fargo spokesperson said the company is disappointed by and disagrees with the decision.

"Wells Fargo’s policies provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, regardless of disability or any other status protected by law, and we provided these opportunities in this situation.”

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities and prohibits discrimination based on disability.

While the law doesn’t explicitly mandate an “interactive process” for reaching an accommodation decision, it tends to favor such efforts. According to the Job Accommodation Network, a Department of Labor service, this process can include recognizing an accommodation request, gathering information, exploring options together, implementing an accommodation and monitoring the accommodation.

Additionally, enforcement authorities and courts tend to disfavor any party that causes a breakdown in the interactive process. In other words, if an employee abandons the process, an employer could be found to have met its ADA responsibilities; if an employer abandons the process, that can serve as evidence of discrimination, an employment law attorney previously told HR Dive.

In Billesdon, the judge said, there were disputes regarding whether the employer engaged in “genuine discourse” about the accommodation request. The managers allegedly said a trial period of working from home would merely be “delaying the inevitable,” for example, and cited concerns about regulatory and compliance issues without ever reaching a conclusion. Resolution of the claims, therefore, was appropriately left for a jury, the judge said.