Tag Archives: electronic

Is Attendance An Essential Function Of The Job?

In E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 WL 1584674 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed on the issue of essential functions of a job under the American Disabilities Act.  Specifically, whether physical presence was one of these.  The Sixth Circuit remanded the summary judgment decision because it found that there is a genuine issue of whether this was the case.  The Court noted that courts should consider that while physical presence is required for some jobs, it is not required for all positions.

In this case, the plaintiff suffered of irritable bowel syndrome, which often made her unable to control her bowel. The plaintiff requested accommodations by allowing to telecommute. Since this was denied, the plaintiff had to take FMLA leave, which caused her to miss work and her work suffered.  Consequently, she was terminated.

It reasoned:

When we first developed the principle that attendance is an essential requirement of most jobs, technology was such that the workplace and an employer’s brick-and-mortar location were synonymous. However, as technology has advanced in the intervening decades, and an ever-greater number of employers and employees utilize remote work arrangements, attendance at the workplace can no longer be assumed to mean attendance at the employer’s physical location. Instead, the law must respond to the advance of technology in the employment context, as it has in other areas of modern life, and recognize that the “workplace” is anywhere that an employee can perform her job duties. Thus, the vital question in this case is not whether “attendance” was an essential job function for a resale buyer, but whether physical presence at the Ford facilities was truly essential. Determining whether physical presence is essential to a particular job is a “highly fact specific” question.

Id. at *6 (emphasis added).

The reach of the opinion is unclear.  The Court also noted:

It is important, at this juncture, to clarify that we are not rejecting the long line of precedent recognizing predictable attendance as an essential function of most jobs. Nor are we claiming that, because technology has advanced, most modern jobs are amenable to remote work arrangements. As we discussed above, many jobs continue to require physical presence because the employee must interact directly with people or objects at the worksite. See, e.g., Melange, 482 F. App’x at 84 (custodian). We are merely recognizing that, given the state of modern technology, it is no longer the case that jobs suitable for telecommuting are “extraordinary” or “unusual.” Vande Zande, 44 F.3d at 545; Smith, 129 F.3d at 867–68. When we decided Smith in 1997, we responded to the world as it then existed; however, in the intervening years, communications technology has advanced to the point that it is no longer an “unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties from home.”

Id. at *11 (emphasis added).

This decision is interesting in many different levels.  First, the use of technology is being considered as a reasonable accommodation. Second, it adds to the trail of cases focusing on electronic communications.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under ADAAAA, civil rights, courts, Disability, discrimination, employment, federal, labor, legal decision, technology, Title VII

The Sedona Conference®

Electronic discovery and electronic stored information are very important topics for everyone – employes, law firms, lawsuits, etc.  The Sedona Conference should be the first step you take when trying to get a better handle in the area of electronic discovery and electronic stored information.

I bring to your attention the website that lists all of the Sedona Conference’s publications.

Recently, the Sedona Conferenced uploaded its post-comments publication in the area of proportionality of costs.  This is an important publication because the proportionality of costs will influence who pays for the costs of discovery and what is a reasonable request.  In other words, defining what is an undue burden and expense.

Publications | The Sedona Conference®.

Leave a comment

Filed under discovery, electronic discovery, legal research, rules

Courts Increasingly Cognizant of eDiscovery Burdens, Reject “Gotcha” Sanctions Demands

Courts are becoming increasingly cognizant of the eDiscovery burdens that the information explosion has placed on organizations. Indeed, the cases from 2012 are piling up in which courts have rejected demands that sanctions be imposed for seemingly reasonable information retention practices. The recent case of Grabenstein v. Arrow Electronics (D. Colo. April 23, 2012) is another notable instance of this trend.

In Grabenstein, the court refused to sanction a company for eliminating emails pursuant to a good faith document retention policy. The plaintiff had argued that drastic sanctions (evidence, adverse inference and monetary) should be imposed on the company since relevant emails regarding her alleged disability were not retained in violation of both its eDiscovery duties and an EEOC regulatory retention obligation. The court disagreed, finding that sanctions were inappropriate because the emails were not deleted before the duty to preserve was triggered: “Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant deleted e-mails after the litigation hold was imposed.”

Furthermore, the court declined to issue sanctions of any kind even though it found that the company deleted emails in violation of its EEOC regulatory retention duty. The court adopted this seemingly incongruous position because the emails were overwritten pursuant to a reasonable document retention policy:

“there is no evidence to show that the e-mails were destroyed in other than the normal course of business pursuant to Defendant’s e-mail retention policy or that Defendant intended to withhold unfavorable information from Plaintiff.”

The Grabenstein case reinforces the principle that reasonable information retention and eDiscovery processes can and often do trump sanctions requests. Just like the defendant in Grabenstein, organizations should develop and follow a retention policy that eliminates data stockpiles before litigation is reasonably anticipated. Grabenstein also demonstrates the value of deploying a timely and comprehensive litigation hold process to ensure that relevant electronically stored information (ESI) is retained once a preservation duty is triggered. These principles are consistent with various other recent cases, including a decision last month in which pharmaceutical giant Pfizer defeated a sanctions motion by relying on its “good faith business procedures” to eliminate legacy materials before a duty to preserve arose.

The Grabenstein holding also spotlights the role that proportionality can play in determining the extent of a party’s preservation duties. The Grabenstein court reasoned that sanctions would be inappropriate since plaintiff managed to obtain the destroyed emails from an alternative source. Without expressly mentioning “proportionality,” the court implicitly drew on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) to reach its “no harm, no foul” approach to plaintiff’s sanctions request. Rule 2626(b)(2)(C)(i) empowers a court to limit discovery when it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Given that plaintiff actually had the emails in question and there was no evidence suggesting other ESI had been destroyed, proportionality standards tipped the scales against the sanctions request.

The Grabenstein holding is good news for organizations looking to reduce their eDiscovery costs and burdens. By refusing to accede to a tenuous sanctions motion and by following principles of proportionality, the court sustained reasonableness over “gotcha” eDiscovery tactics. If courts adhere to the Grabenstein mantra that preservation and production should be reasonable and proportional, organizations truly stand a better chance of seeing their litigation costs and burdens reduced accordingly.

via e-discovery 2.0 » Blog Archive » Courts Increasingly Cognizant of eDiscovery Burdens, Reject “Gotcha” Sanctions Demands.

1 Comment

Filed under courts, electronic discovery, legal decision, sanctions, technology