1. Is predictable attendance an essential job function of Harris’ position? Does Harris have a claim for relief under the ADA? 
2. Do you believe the employer made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the employee? Can you imagine a reasonable accommodation Ford might have been able to provide for Harris? Why might it be in the employer’s best interest to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities, regardless of whether there is a requirement to provide an accommodation?

Issue: Whether predictable attendance is an essential function of a position? 

Facts: The employer, an automobile manufacturer, fired Jane Harris, an employee with irritable bowel syndrome who had worked as a resale buyer of steel.  Harris had requested a flexible job schedule including the ability to work from home on an as-needed basis. Ford claimed that regular and predictable on-site attendance was essential to Harris's highly interactive job and pointed to Harris's three past telecommuting failures to support its refusal of her request.

Subsequently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought an action alleging that Ford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Harris' disability and also that it retaliated against her for filing a charge with EEOC. 

Decision: The court found that regular and predictable on-site job attendance was both an essential function of, and a prerequisite to perform other essential functions of, employee's resale-buyer job, and so, due to her repeated absences, she was not qualified for her position, and employer did not fail to reasonably accommodate her disability by refusing her request to telecommute up to four days per week.