Fired for Not Returning to the Office? Employee Sues Employer, Alleging ADA Discrimination

A disabled employee was allegedly fired after he was unable to comply with the company’s post-Covid-19 return-to-the-office policy.

Enfield, Connecticut, resident Zacchery Belval, the plaintiff, alleged that Electric Boat Corp., the defendant, discriminated against him when it did not provide him with reasonable accommodations. The plaintiff claimed the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

Belval has several health issues, including a heart defect, abnormal arrangement of organs, no spleen, an impaired circulatory system, high blood pressure, and severe anxiety, the complaint claimed. These medical conditions caused the plaintiff to be at high risk for Covid-19, Belval argued.

Counsel for the defendant has not appeared yet, and Electric Boat did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Insufficient Accommodation’

According to the complaint, the walk from the parking lot to the office is physically challenging for the plaintiff, and the office is poorly ventilated, crowded, and has mold, which increased the risk of Covid-19.

During the height of the pandemic, the plaintiff was able to work from home, until the company began to encourage workers return to the office, the complaint said. Until October 2021, Belval was able to receive accommodations through his union representative and medical documentation from physicians, the complaint said.

While the job can be done remotely, with a company-owned computer to remove safety concerns, the defendant requested the plaintiff return to work in person, the complaint said.

The plaintiff began a time of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave due to the recommendation of his doctor, “who said the plaintiff should not physically return to work in order to avoid contracting Covid-19,” the complaint alleged.

When the FMLA period ended on January 3, 2022, the plaintiff’s doctor said the plaintiff needed to continue working from home, the complaint claimed. “The defendant offered to allow the plaintiff to work from home one or two days a week,” the complaint claimed. “This was an insufficient accommodation that would have placed the plaintiff at substantial risk of contracting Covid-19 and other infections.”

Belval was placed on extended leave of absence, and on April 14, 2023, the plaintiff contacted the defendant’s Occupational Health Center “to reiterate his request that he be reasonably accommodated by being permitted to work from home,” the complaint said.

The defendant denied the request and gave an alternative accommodation of working on-site two days a week and from home three days, which was “contrary to the recommendations of the plaintiff’s medical treaters,” the complaint said. “The defendant directed the plaintiff to report to the Occupational Health Center by August 21, 2023, or it would regard him as having ‘resigned’ his position.”

The plaintiff did not return to work, the complaint said.

“As a result of the defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to the plaintiff,” the complaint said, “and the defendant’s termination of the plaintiff’s employment, he has suffered harm, including a loss of the wages and benefits of employment and pain, suffering, and emotional distress.”

Counsel for the plaintiff, Peter Goselin of The Law Office of Peter Goselin, did not respond to a request for comment.

From: BenefitsPRO