## Facts

- Beverly J. Rauen worked for U.S. Tobacco Manufacturing Limited Partnership (UST) for decades and served as a software engineer at UST’s Franklin Park, Illinois plant.
- Her primary duties included monitoring contractors’ work at the plant, answering contractors’ questions, and ensuring contractor activities did not disrupt manufacturing; these tasks required regular onsite presence.
- In 1996, she was diagnosed with rectal cancer and underwent surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy; UST granted medical leave and held her position.
- After returning to work, she experienced lasting effects (frequent restroom use, ostomy-related needs, fatigue) but worked successfully at the plant and, by agreement of the parties, performed very well while working full-time in the office between 1999 and 2001.
- In 1999, she requested to work from home as an ADA accommodation, proposing to come to the plant only “as necessary,” with her deciding when presence was needed, and she declined to commit to a regular onsite schedule.
- UST rejected near-full-time telecommuting for this position and offered alternative measures to support onsite work, including a private office, a private restroom, and a place to lie down; Rauen declined those alternatives.
- Rauen sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for UST, and Rauen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Rauen was a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA in light of her ability to perform essential job functions at the workplace.
2. Whether the ADA required UST to grant Rauen’s requested home-work arrangement when the job’s essential functions required onsite presence and UST offered other onsite accommodations.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UST.
- The court held Rauen could perform the essential functions of her position at the Franklin Park facility and therefore was not entitled to a work-from-home arrangement that would remove her from essential onsite duties.
- The court held Rauen’s requested telecommuting plan—without a predictable onsite schedule and with unilateral control over when she would report—was not a reasonable accommodation for a position requiring ongoing plant-based supervision and coordination.

## Legal Principles

- An employee is “qualified” under the ADA if she can perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; the statute does not create an entitlement to an employee’s preferred accommodation.
- An employer must provide a reasonable and effective accommodation, not necessarily the particular accommodation requested or the best available option.
- An accommodation is not reasonable if it eliminates essential job functions or fundamentally changes the position.
- Essential functions may be shown through written job descriptions, the employer’s judgment, the parties’ agreement about core duties, and evidence of how the job is actually performed.

## Conclusion

The court held the ADA did not require UST to permit largely home-based work where the software engineer role required regular onsite presence to manage and monitor plant contractor activity, and where UST offered alternative accommodations enabling onsite performance of the job’s essential functions.


Rauen v. U.S. Tobacco Mfg. Ltd. P'ship, 319 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2003)