MLG&W Denied Pregnant Attorney's 10-Week Work-From-Home Request; Jury Awarded $110,000 in Landmark ADA Telecommute Case

Andrea Mosby-Meachem had worked as an in-house labor, employment, and workers' compensation attorney for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division since 2005. In early 2013, her physician ordered ten weeks of bed rest for pregnancy complications. She asked MLG&W to let her work from home during that period, pointing out that she had already performed the same job functions remotely for two weeks in 2012 while recovering from neck surgery without any reported problems.

MLG&W's ADA committee rejected the request. The utility argued that in-person attendance was an essential function of her position and raised confidentiality concerns about remote work. Mosby-Meachem continued working from home after the request was formally denied, handling her caseload without apparent disruption, until she was ultimately forced to take leave.

She filed suit in late 2013 asserting disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate. Donati Law attorneys William B. Ryan and Janelle Osowski represented her through trial. The jury returned a verdict for Mosby-Meachem on the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim and awarded $92,000 in compensatory damages. The district court separately awarded $18,184.32 in back pay, bringing the total to approximately $110,000. The jury found against Mosby-Meachem on her pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims.

MLG&W moved for judgment as a matter of law and, separately, appealed to the Sixth Circuit. A three-judge panel, in a February 2018 opinion authored by Judges Gibbons, Guy, and Cook, affirmed every aspect of the district court's rulings. The panel found sufficient evidence that in-person attendance was not essential for a ten-week period given the nature of the work, the fact that the employer allowed telework in practice despite having no formal policy, and the gap between the twenty-year-old job description and actual modern work conditions.

The ruling is cited frequently in ADA accommodation cases for its analysis of when telecommuting qualifies as a reasonable accommodation. The Sixth Circuit's opinion is published at 883 F.3d 595.