Authored by Justin St. Amour
A jury should have the opportunity to decide whether an employer in a specific case is required to provide an accommodation to allow an employee to overcome commute-related difficulties. The Seventh Circuit correctly held that a determination of whether an employee is entitled to commute-related accommodations depends on specific facts and circumstances of each case. It is only logical to follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach in light of the statutory text, legislative history, and fairness to both employees and employers. Arguments that employers have no duty to provide commute-related accommodations because they are limitations outside of the workplace are not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ADA. Rejecting commute-related accommodations at the outset defeats the “reasonable” concept because what is “reasonable” should be analyzed using a fact-specific inquiry.