3rd Circ. Backs Denial of University Secretary’s Remote Work Accommodation Request

Quick Hits

• In a nonprecedential ruling, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of Shippensburg University, finding that a secretary’s accommodation request to work remotely due to an alleged disability was unreasonable.
• The court noted that the undisputed facts indicated that the secretary had several in-person job responsibilities.
• This case emphasizes the importance of accurately outlining in-person responsibilities in job descriptions, particularly in the context of ADA accommodation requests.

In a nonprecedential ruling in Sheehan v. Shippensburg University, the Third Circuit upheld a summary judgment in favor of Shippensburg University in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a psychology department secretary, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA).

The secretary, who had been allowed to work remotely during the 2020 to 2021 school year amid the COVID-19 pandemic, requested to work remotely as an accommodation in December 2021 following the emergence of a new strain of the virus. The university denied the secretary’s accommodation request, explaining that working in the office is an essential function of her job. The university later terminated her employment after she refused to return to the office.

In an opinion by Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, the Third Circuit held that “a fully-remote accommodation would have been unreasonable given [the secretary’s] duties.” Specifically, the Third Circuit referenced undisputed facts that the secretary’s “position involved many in-person tasks such as running errands on campus, putting notes on faculty members’ doors, going to the print shop, unlocking doors, hanging up flyers, and interacting with students in the psychology department.” The court also noted that the secretary had admitted that when she worked remotely, some of these duties were not fulfilled or were handled by secretaries from other departments who worked overtime.

The Third Circuit rejected the secretary’s argument that these in-person tasks could be covered by student employees or graduate assistants. The court stated that having those workers perform the tasks is not an accommodation designed to help the secretary perform the essential functions of her position, but rather a “request to be exempted from an essential duty,” quoting prior case law. (Emphasis in original). Further, the secretary was supposed “to supervise the graduate assistants to ensure they are physically present for their assigned hours in the department.” The Third Circuit also noted that the psychology department only hires one student worker when classes are in session. The university “is not required to hire more student workers to accommodate” the secretary, the court stated.

Key Takeaways

The Third Circuit’s ruling in Sheehan v. Shippensburg University, while not precedential, highlights how federal courts are approaching accommodation claims for remote work after employers’ return-to-office mandates. Central to the ruling were the undisputed facts that the secretary’s role included many tasks that required in-person work, including locking doors, hanging up flyers, interacting with students, and supervising the attendance of graduate assistants.

Notably, the court found that requiring other employees to perform those tasks is not a reasonable accommodation because it exempts the employee from those essential job responsibilities rather than assists the employee in performing those essential functions, and because, in some cases, it would have required the employer to hire additional student workers to perform them.

Employers with return-to-office mandates may want to note the potential for ADA requests for continued remote work as an accommodation, as well as the risk of disability discrimination lawsuits arising from denied requests. The Third Circuit’s recent ruling indicates that employers, at least in the Third Circuit, will be more likely to succeed in defending such claims where they can show that certain essential job responsibilities can only be done in person. Employers may want to ensure that job descriptions accurately reflect in-person job responsibilities.

Ogletree Deakins’ Multistate Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Higher Education, Leaves of Absence, Multistate Compliance, Return to Work, and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts