Former Aon employee sues over denied in-office work request

SUMMARY

• Former Aon employee alleges ADA violations for denying full-time in-office work
• Plaintiff has ADHD and claims remote work harmed job performance
• Complaint alleges discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after accommodation request
• Case could reshape legal thinking on in-person vs. remote ADA accommodations

In a twist on the typical post-pandemic employment dispute, a former employee is suing insurance giant Aon for being denied the right to work in person.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiff, who has attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, claims Aon refused her request to work full-time in the office, an accommodation she said was essential to managing her condition.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was recruited to serve as an account specialist and was assured she could work in office full time. But after accepting the job, she was informed the position was predominantly remote, with a policy allowing only one in-office day per week.

Citing struggles with focus and information processing in a remote setting, the plaintiff requested to work fully on-site. She claims her manager denied the request and instead placed her on a performance improvement plan after she disclosed the impact her disability was having on her remote work performance.

After formally requesting accommodation through Human Resources and submitting medical documentation, the plaintiff says her request to work in the office was eventually granted. But according to the suit, her manager reacted negatively to the approval, and she was fired just weeks later, despite improved performance metrics.

Complaint’s allegations

The lawsuit includes three ADA-related claims:

• Disability discrimination: The defendant allegedly fired the plaintiff because of her disability and failed to engage in a good-faith accommodation process.
• Disability-based harassment: The complaint describes dismissive remarks and a lack of support as contributing to a hostile environment.
• Retaliation: The plaintiff claims her termination was tied to her protected activity of formally requesting a workplace accommodation.

The suit seeks back pay, front pay, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, and legal fees.

A flip on remote work

Since 2020, many ADA accommodation disputes have centered on employees seeking to stay remote. Court rulings have been mixed with issues of reasonable accommodation, essential job functions and an employer’s participation in an interactive process.

But this case flips the script, with the employee asking to be in the office — a request that, on its face, seems easier to grant from a logistical and managerial standpoint.

This case could challenge some assumptions about flexibility. Just as employers can’t automatically reject remote work requests, they also can’t default to remote setups if an in-person option better accommodates an employee’s disability.

The case, Gomez v. Aon Private Risk Management Insurance Agency, Inc., is pending in federal court.

EXTERNAL LINKS

• Aon corporate website
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois