## Facts

- Jane Harris worked for Ford Motor Company as a resale steel buyer, a position Ford treated as highly interactive and requiring frequent in-person communication with coworkers, suppliers, and “stampers.”
- Harris had irritable bowel syndrome causing fecal incontinence, which made it difficult for her to be physically present at work on some days; she used intermittent leave and had frequent absences.
- Ford maintained that resale buyers needed regular, predictable on-site attendance and had them work in the same building as stampers to meet on short notice.
- Ford had a limited telecommuting policy (up to one set day per week), but Harris requested to work from home on an as-needed basis up to four days per week.
- Ford denied the request, citing the job’s need for predictable on-site presence and Harris’s prior unsuccessful telecommuting attempts.
- Ford offered other accommodations, including relocating Harris’s workstation closer to a restroom and exploring other positions more suitable for telework; Harris rejected these alternatives.
- Harris’s performance and attendance problems continued, and Ford terminated her employment in 2009.
- The EEOC sued Ford for failure to reasonably accommodate under the ADA and for retaliation based on Harris’s EEOC charge.

## Issues

1. Whether regular and predictable on-site attendance was an essential function of Harris’s resale buyer position, making her request to telecommute up to four days per week on an as-needed basis an unreasonable accommodation under the ADA.
2. Whether the EEOC produced sufficient evidence that Ford’s stated reasons for termination (performance and attendance problems) were pretext for retaliation.

## Decision

- The en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ford on both claims.
- The court held that regular and predictable on-site attendance was an essential function of the resale buyer position given its highly interactive, face-to-face demands.
- The court held that telecommuting up to four days per week on an unpredictable, as-needed basis was not a required reasonable accommodation on this record.
- The court held the EEOC failed to raise a triable issue that Ford’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for termination were pretextual.

## Legal Principles

- The ADA requires reasonable accommodation that enables a qualified individual to perform essential job functions; it does not require an employer to eliminate an essential function.
- Courts consider the employer’s judgment and contemporaneous job descriptions in determining essential functions, particularly where the job requires frequent in-person teamwork and responsiveness.
- Telework may be a reasonable accommodation in some jobs, but whether physical presence is essential is job-specific and may depend on demonstrated performance while telecommuting.
- An employee is not entitled to a preferred accommodation when other reasonable options are offered.
- For ADA retaliation claims under the burden-shifting framework, once the employer offers legitimate reasons for discharge, the plaintiff must produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find those reasons were pretext for retaliation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that Ford lawfully denied Harris’s request for largely unpredictable, extensive telecommuting because predictable on-site attendance was essential to her highly interactive job, and it further held that the EEOC did not produce evidence sufficient to let a jury find Ford’s performance- and attendance-based termination rationale was retaliatory.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc)