EEOC sued Ford Motor Co. on behalf of Jan Harris, a Ford Motor Co. with irritable bowel syndrome. She sought to work from home on an as-needed basis, up to four days per week. Ford had denied her request on the grounds that her position as resale buyer was highly interactive and required her presence on the job site. The district court granted summary judgment for Ford, and EEOC appealed. The appellate court affirmed. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? 

2. What is the evidence that regular presence at a physical workplace is an essential function of the job of resale buyer at Ford? What is the evidence that it is not an essential function of this job? What would you conclude? Why? 

3. What accommodations are discussed in this case? Which, if any, of these would be “reasonable” accommodations? Why?

4. Comment on the “interactive process” engaged in by Ford and this employee. Did Ford make a sufficient good faith effort to find an accommodation for this employee?  Why or why not?

5. What are some practical implications of this decision?