Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Accommodating the Return to Work

Client Alert

It has been two months since Ohio declared coronavirus an emergency, and although it is clear things will not be fully back to "normal" anytime soon, the state of Ohio is rolling out the reopening process for businesses with a number of new guidelines and restrictions. As businesses reopen, employers and employees will face difficult decisions about returning to work, including reasonable accommodation concerns under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law equivalents. The EEOC recently updated its question and answer document with additional guidance regarding this issue, available here.   

As explained in prior BMD client alerts, an employee's fear of coronavirus, by itself, does not provide a legal basis for accommodation or refusal to work. For a discussion of how an employee's refusal to work or return to work affects the analysis of unemployment claims, see Bryan Meek's article available here. However, if an employee has an underlying medical condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness due to coronavirus, they may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. For example, having an immuno-compromised condition greatly increases the risk for an employee who regularly interacts with coworkers or the public. The employee should communicate to their employer regarding the medical condition and corresponding need, and the employer may then ask questions or request medical documentation to determine if a reasonable accommodation is appropriate. Questions may include how the disability creates a limitation, how the requested accommodation will address the limitation, and whether other forms of accommodation could be effective in enabling the employee to perform essential job functions.   

The EEOC's updated Q&A provides a number of examples of accommodations for individuals at higher risk related to coronavirus, including the following:

  • additional or enhanced protective gowns, masks, gloves, or modified protective gear;
  • barriers or increased space providing separation between an employee with a disability and others;
  • elimination or substitution of particular “marginal” job functions (note that reasonable accommodation does not require elimination of "essential" job functions);
  • temporary modification of work schedules or remote work; or
  • relocating an employee's work location or station.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, and the EEOC is encouraging employers and employees to be "creative and flexible" in working out accommodations. As with any other accommodation request, employers should engage in an interactive process with their employees. There is no legal obligation to provide a particular accommodation if it poses an "undue hardship" on the employer or there is a "direct threat" to health or safety to the individual or others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Although coronavirus has significantly affected the analysis of reasonable accommodation and direct threat, the same framework for the interactive process remains in place and should be utilized. 

For more information, please contact Russell Rendall at 216.658.2205 or rtrendall@bmdllc.com.


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.