However if the company hired them for work at home, the workers may have a case. But if both the worker and/or company can terminate employment at will, there should not be a case.
My company has had a "back to the office" policy for sometime but if you are a productive and valued worker, accomodations are always made...for those who contribute.
Good point...what was their hiring circumstance?
Never will understand the compulsion some people seem to have to “work” at home. I like to separate my work life from home life. If you are at home all day, every day then you might as well be under house arrest.
Getting out in the world with other people is so much better for your mental well being.
Gotta side with employers on this one.
This is more woke bs. He was first hired for an in office job. Either he does what he was hired for or he is fired.
He may have a case, given his health condition. As I understand it from corporate training, Federal law requires reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities.
If the article is correct, it doesn’t appear the company tried to make the accommodation.
“Reasonable accommodations”, once demonstrated, may be hard to smash back into the toothpaste tube.
They are never going to be able to put that toothpaste back in the tube. Once people saw that they could get their work done just as well from home....that it was not actually necessary to commute into the office and burn a lot of their time and money doing so, they were never going to be forced back to the office like before. Companies can force those on the lowest rungs back in all the time. Any workers who have leverage however, will be able to insist on 100% remote work. Companies which refuse are simply not going to get the skills and experience they want.
That’s already been happening.
I serve on the board of directors of a company that is futilely trying to get people back to the office. At a board meeting last year I was the only one opposed to a “return to office” mandate. To their credit, the other directors saw the wisdom of this and backed down on the mandate.
Give a baby a lollipop.
Then take it away. See how it goes.
HPE in the past sold off a lot of office space and said everyone work from home. Then they changed it to everyone must be in an office. Well they got rid of much of the office space. Surprised they did not get sued for that.
When you work from home for several years it is difficult to make the case that a return to the office is needed.
In fact, some major corporations sold massive amounts of real estate because they found office work was not needed.
That said, employers are free to change the rules at any time.
Those who work remote should get paid lower wages than those who have to travel to the office (Especially government leaches). Let’s see how many would accept that.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong or unreasonable as your employer expecting you to show up at your place of employment.
...has congenital heart disease and severe anxiety.
And who’s fault is all this?
And while it doesn't make sense to require Agent 007 to sit in an office in between assignments, M and Q and Miss Moneypenny pretty much do need to be in a centralized location or a well-equipped lab. And it's pretty hard for maintenance personnel to call it in.
So, the superstars who get movies made about them can work and thrive while not being in a central, common location. Or drones who do the the same thing all day long every day, and who could also be monitored for performance by tracking logs or output measurements.
But middle management requires people skills, and those don't come from Zoom calls. So unless and until large corporations go to 2 levels of employees - the CEO/Owner and the drones, there will be a need for work from office. And those who avoid that can expect to be a remote drone for a real long time.
I see the problem right there.
The days of employers getting everything they demand are over, people are much more likely to quit than they were in the past if reasonable accommodations aren't made. I for one am glad of it, for far too long employers have been able to treat employees like crap for peanut wages. The dynamics have changed and people are much more willing to tell them to stuff it than they were in the past.
If management believes that in-office work is more productive, that is their policy. You’re welcome to refuse, they’re welcome to fire you. They can change their mind as they wish, it is ‘at will’ employment. The company has the right to determine their policy.
That said, firing somebody because of a health issue is an outlier case that shouldn’t be used to justify the norm, it should be handled on an individual case basis.
Lawyers overreaching imho.
Ain’t HIPPA grand?
If I’m the boss and this guy is trying to sue, I’d love to see the medical records and if his claim is actually legitimate. Or did he find a sympathetic doctor that produced some documents. There are plenty of doctors that will give you ‘sick note’.
I’m not what ‘crippling anxiety’ is, but once again, find another sympathetic doctor, a psychiatrist, to whip up some nonsense and provide a sick note.
Boss has to pay bills on a office that isn’t being used. Cut the clowns pay to help cover the rent, utilities, etc.
I tried it for 2 yeas wit URRR. The downside is you will be passed over for promotions on a regular basis. Out of site, out of mind.