## Facts

- Andrea J. Mosby-Meachem worked as an in-house “Attorney 3” for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division (MLG&W), handling primarily labor, employment, and workers’ compensation matters.
- Her written job description listed senior legal work (litigation support, analysis, counseling, compliance advice) but did not state that physical presence in the office was an essential function.
- The legal department generally expected office hours, but evidence showed attorneys sometimes worked remotely, including Mosby-Meachem on occasion and another attorney for two weeks after knee surgery.
- During a pregnancy with complications, Mosby-Meachem’s doctor ordered bed rest and recommended she work from home.
- Mosby-Meachem requested permission to telework for approximately ten weeks; MLG&W denied the request, asserting in-person attendance was essential.
- At trial, Mosby-Meachem presented evidence that most of her duties involved research, drafting, and advising that could be performed by phone, email, and remote network access; she had not participated in a trial during her tenure.
- A jury found MLG&W liable for ADA disability discrimination based on refusal to allow temporary telework and awarded compensatory damages; the district court also awarded back pay for the period telework was denied.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Mosby-Meachem was a “qualified individual” under the ADA because in-person attendance was not an essential job function during the ten-week period, given the requested telework accommodation.
2. Whether Sixth Circuit “attendance is essential” precedent required judgment as a matter of law or a new trial for MLG&W.
3. Whether the district court properly awarded equitable relief, including back pay, following the verdict.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of MLG&W’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and its alternative request for a new trial.
- The court held that the record permitted a reasonable jury to find in-person attendance was not an essential function of the Attorney 3 position for the ten-week, doctor-ordered bed-rest period.
- The court affirmed the district court’s award of equitable relief, including back pay.

## Legal Principles

- An ADA plaintiff must prove she is a “qualified individual,” meaning she can perform the job’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.
- Whether a function is “essential” is a fact question evaluated in context; relevant considerations include the employer’s stated expectations, the written job description, available technology, and how the job is actually performed.
- Temporary telework may constitute a reasonable accommodation where evidence shows core duties can be performed remotely and the accommodation does not eliminate essential functions.
- Prior cases emphasizing physical attendance do not create a categorical rule against telework; distinctions include the duration of telework requested (temporary versus long-term/indefinite) and whether the position requires daily in-person collaboration.
- On review of a jury verdict, courts assess whether a reasonable jury could reach the verdict when evidence and inferences are viewed in the prevailing party’s favor.
- Back pay is an available equitable remedy under the ADA when an employee is wrongfully deprived of the ability to work due to an unlawful refusal to accommodate.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a jury’s finding that MLG&W violated the ADA by refusing a ten-week telework accommodation for an in-house attorney on doctor-ordered bed rest, concluding the evidence supported that in-person attendance was not essential during that limited period and affirming back pay as equitable relief.


Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 883 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2018)