Although not a case here in New York, a recent decision by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts may have broad ranging implications for employment law related specifically to coronavirus-related work accommodations, which is why we are bringing it to your attention today.
The case, Peeples v. Clinical Support Options, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-30144-KAR, 2020 WL 5542719 (D. Mass. Sept. 16, 2020), involved a plaintiff who required special workplace accommodations due to their asthma. According to the suit, the plaintiff’s employer, Clinical Support Options, Inc. refused to accommodate the plaintiff’s request to work remotely, which was recommended by the plaintiff’s doctor.
Instead, the employer attempted to compensate by providing the plaintiff with n95 masks, an air purifier and other precautions. But, the plaintiff remained exposed to unsafe conditions, including fellow employees who remained unmasked. As more research has appeared, masking is most effective in preventing the wearer from spreading the virus, rather than protecting the wearer from infection.
Thus, according to the ruling, providing the plaintiff with a mask was insufficient accommodation, holding “a majority of these so-called accommodations are workplace safety rules rather than an individualized accommodation to address Plaintiff’s disability.” Furthermore, the court noted, employers are not medical experts and therefore not in a position to determine what constitutes proper accommodation for workers with pre-existing conditions, particularly when an actual doctor has determined a patient needs such special accommodation.
It is exceedingly likely that this is not the last case we see about conflicts between employers and employees concerned about workplace safety related to coronavirus, and we will bring you any updates or new cases as they appear.
