Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Employer’s Duty to Accommodate Disabilities Didn’t Require Allowing Working From Home
Employer That Does Work for National Nuclear Security Administration Cited Policy Concerns; Employee Had Not Attained Security Clearance
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a research and development center that does work for the National Nuclear Security Administration, rejecting the contention of a former employee, who had not yet attained security clearance, that she was the victim of disability discrimination because she was not allowed to work one to two days a week from home.
Plaintiff Ariella Walker had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force because of a medical condition, fibromyalgia, defined by the Mayo clinic as “a disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory and mood issues.” Walker obtained employment at defendant National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC beginning in March, 2017, and ending with her resignation on July 17, 2019.
She sought two accommodations: working at home part-time and, upset over being in isolation when at work, being escorted periodically into a sensitive compartmentalized information facility (“SCIF”) to have interplay with other employees.
Plaintiff’s Position
In opposing summary judgment, she explained:
“In her home environment, it was easier than at the workplace for her body to be in a relatively relaxed state in which her physical fibromyalgia symptoms tend to subside, and it was easier to rest when necessary.”
As to her request to join “the other members of her team who worked in a secure facility,” she explained that when “sequestered in a separate building,” she “experienced frustration both from generally feeling isolated from her teammates as well as from communication limitations that she encountered while trying to interact productively with them on matters that she and they were supposed to be working on together.”
This frustration, she said, exacerbated her condition.
The controversy was whether the accommodations she sought were reasonable.
Nonconfidential Material
As Walker presented her case:
“Ms. Walker believed it was feasible to work on nonconfidential material from home and, in fact, she was under the impression others had done so. Sandia even had a work from home policy…, so the concept was accepted within the company. Ms. Walker, who was accustomed to holding high security clearances and working with highly confidential material, believed that at least 60% of her work was neither classified nor highly confidential. She believed it could be accomplished from home when her symptoms were flaring up.”
She also argued:
“Ms. Walker noted that even tradespeople without security clearances were escorted into secure areas to perform work. As an accommodation, Ms. Walker asked to be escorted into the SCIF to interact with members of her team or, alternatively, to have more regular meetings with team members outside the SCIF. Ms. Walker’s knowledge of security requirements made her confident that increased team interaction was possible and would increase team productivity, as well as help her morale and management of work stress.”
Employer’s Stance
In moving for summary judgment, Sandia maintained:
“…Plaintiff could not work… from home due to the classified nature of most of the material….[T]he law is clear—employees are not entitled to any accommodation requests made—the law addresses reasonable accommodations, and there may be less burdensome options available that achieve the same goal….Plaintiff’s requests were not reasonable and created an undue hardship for Defendant.”
It set forth:
“Escorting Plaintiff into the SCIF would require removing classified material, limit ongoing phone calls and classified discussions, and blanking or darkening many of the couple dozen computer screens in the room that would normally show classified information.”
Ninth Circuit Opinion
A Ninth Circuit panel, in a memorandum opinion by Circuit Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. and Senior Judges Carlos T. Bea and Jay S. Bybee, recited that Walker had sought to be “allowed to work on classified material from her home” although her request was to work on non-classified materials.
The judges declared that the accommodations Walker sought “were unreasonable as a matter of law because they would violate national security protocols, as the district court correctly concluded.”
They said that the undisputed evidence points to the invalidity of Walker’s claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The case is Walker v. National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, 23-16159.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company