November 27, 2025 • 30 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
Have you ever felt the tension between your employer's demands and your rights as an employee? In this eye-opening episode of the Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey dives deep into a landmark legal case that could change the way we view remote work and employee rights forever. Join us as we unravel the compelling story of Luciano Russo and George Messiah, two National Grid USA dispatchers who stood up against their company’s insistence on returning to the office after thriving in a remote work environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is not just about a job; it’s about the fundamental rights of employees, especially those facing disabilities.
As Russo and Messiah argued, their remote work was not merely a convenience but a necessary accommodation for their health issues. Their battle highlights crucial employment law issues, particularly under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The court’s ruling, which favored the plaintiffs and awarded them significant damages, sends a powerful message to employers: disregarding employee accommodations can lead to serious repercussions. This episode explores the legal complexities surrounding remote work challenges and the importance of documented employee performance in a post-pandemic workforce.
Mark delves into the implications of this case for employee rights, emphasizing the importance of reasonable accommodations and how they can redefine what constitutes essential functions in any workplace. The episode also sheds light on the broader implications of workplace culture and employee empowerment, especially for those who face discrimination based on disability, race, gender, or age. It’s a must-listen for anyone navigating employment disputes or seeking to understand their rights in a hostile work environment.
Whether you’re an employee, an HR professional, or an employment law attorney, this episode is packed with insider tips that can help you advocate for yourself and your colleagues. Learn how to negotiate your employment contract effectively, understand the nuances of severance negotiation, and explore the various forms of discrimination that can occur in the workplace. The Employee Survival Guide® is your go-to resource for navigating the complex world of employment law, ensuring you are equipped with the knowledge and skills to thrive in your career.
Don’t miss out on this powerful discussion that could reshape your understanding of employee rights and workplace dynamics. Tune in now to the Employee Survival Guide® and empower yourself with the knowledge you need to survive and thrive in today’s challenging work environment!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:37):
Okay, let's unpack this.
SPEAKER_00 (00:38):
Aaron Powell Let's do it.
SPEAKER_02 (00:38):
Aaron Powell We are diving into a case that just it
perfectly captures this defininglegal tension of the
post-pandemic workplace.
Oh, absolutely.
It's this abrupt collisionbetween employers saying
everybody back to the office andthe established legal rights of
employees with disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (00:56):
Aaron Powell And this isn't just some internal HR
memo gone wrong.
This is about whether a majorpublic utility can legally force
employees to commute when thosesame employees have proven they
can do their safety critical jobsuccessfully from home.
SPEAKER_02 (01:10):
Aaron Powell Right.
So we're looking at the landmarkcase of Luciano Russo and George
Messiah versus National GridUSA.
SPEAKER_00 (01:16):
Aaron Ross Powell And what makes this deep dive so
potent is that we're not justrelying on news clippings or
summaries.
We have the whole anatomy of thelegal fight.
We've got the plaintiff'sdetailed second amendment
complaint, which lays out theentire factual story.
SPEAKER_02 (01:30):
Then we have the defendant's formal answer, their
side of the story.
SPEAKER_00 (01:32):
Aaron Powell And the court's pivotal order denying
summary judgment, which is wherethe judge lays out why this has
to go to a jury.
SPEAKER_02 (01:39):
And finally, the big one the dramatic, financially
devastating jury verdict sheet,the final word.
Exactly.
Our mission today is well, it'ssurgical.
We need to understand how afight over working from home, a
setup that was forced oneveryone by COVID, how did that
mushroom into this hugedisability lawsuit?
(02:01):
We're talking federal, state,and city disability laws, the
ADA, the NYSHRL.
SPEAKER_00 (02:07):
And the big one, the New York City human rights law,
the NYCHRL, which is notoriouslyemployee protective.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (02:14):
And it's all applied to a desk job at a huge utility
company.
SPEAKER_00 (02:17):
And here's where it gets really interesting.
SPEAKER_02 (02:19):
Yeah, let's get to the bottom line.
SPEAKER_00 (02:20):
The jury found for the plaintiffs decisively on
everything.
They completely rejectedNational Grid's core defense
that being in the office was anessential function for public
safety.
SPEAKER_02 (02:31):
And the price tag for that loss.
SPEAKER_00 (02:33):
Staggering.
Over three million dollarscombined, and a huge chunk of
that with punitive damages.
SPEAKER_02 (02:38):
Which means the jury thought the company acted badly.
SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
Very badly.
This verdict is just amonumental warning shot to any
employer trying to defineessential functions now that
remote work has a proven trackrecord.
SPEAKER_02 (02:51):
Okay, so let's set the scene.
The defendant here is NationalGrid USA.
SPEAKER_00 (02:55):
Aaron Powell Right.
And we need to be clear this isnot some small startup.
This is a massive criticalinfrastructure provider, a gas
utility that serves the entireNortheast.
SPEAKER_02 (03:05):
With huge offices right in Brooklyn, New York,
we're talking about a companywhose whole business is public
safety and essential services.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
Exactly.
And the plaintiffs, Russo andMessiah, they weren't just
random employees.
They were in specialized rolesright at the heart of those
essential services.
They were dispatchers.
SPEAKER_02 (03:24):
And this is key.
While their jobs are absolutelysafety critical, they are
fundamentally sedentary.
They're based on communicationcoordination.
SPEAKER_00 (03:31):
All done on computers and phones.
Understanding what they actuallydid every day is, I think, vital
to understanding the whole case.
SPEAKER_02 (03:38):
So let's detail that.
Luciano Russo, he'd been withthe company a while, got
promoted to distribution centraldispatcher back in 2013.
SPEAKER_00 (03:45):
And his focus was incredibly high stakes.
Oh, yeah.
He handled emergency jobs forunderground street leaks.
We're talking gas mains, servicelines.
SPEAKER_02 (03:54):
The kind of thing that makes the news if it goes
wrong.
SPEAKER_00 (03:57):
Exactly.
His job was to use specializedcomputer systems to classify the
work, track where the crewswere, and coordinate the
response with the foreman in thefield.
He was the communication hub.
SPEAKER_02 (04:08):
The link between the emergency call and the guys on
the street fixing the leak.
SPEAKER_00 (04:12):
Right.
And then you have GeorgeMessiah, also a veteran, the
company since 2001.
He was a central meter servicesdispatcher.
SPEAKER_02 (04:19):
So a similar role?
SPEAKER_00 (04:21):
Similar, but a bit different.
He also used computers andphones to assign crews, but he
handled a mix of planned jobsand emergencies.
SPEAKER_02 (04:29):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (04:29):
But Messiah had this other layer of responsibility.
He was an elected union delegatefor the dispatcher group.
SPEAKER_02 (04:35):
So he knew the contract inside and out.
SPEAKER_00 (04:37):
Intimately.
Not at all.
It was proven by necessity.
March 2020 hits, the world shutsdown.
SPEAKER_02 (04:58):
The COVID lockdown.
SPEAKER_00 (04:59):
And New York State issues a mandate.
So National Grid sends all ofits dispatchers home to work.
SPEAKER_02 (05:05):
This becomes the linchpin of the whole case,
doesn't it?
SPEAKER_00 (05:08):
It's a massive piece of evidence.
I mean, think about it.
National Grid, a company that isabout to argue that public
safety is paramount and requiresin-person work.
Right.
They successfully executed thishuge technological pivot.
They installed secure laptops,all the software, specialized
phone hookups, so that everysingle dispatcher could plug
(05:28):
into the office systems fromtheir own homes.
SPEAKER_02 (05:31):
And for two full years, the company basically
admitted, just by its actions,that the job could be done
remotely.
SPEAKER_00 (05:37):
Precisely.
SPEAKER_02 (05:38):
And it wasn't just that they could do the job, the
plaintiff's alleged performanceactually got better.
SPEAKER_00 (05:44):
Significantly better.
Russo's complaint specificallymentions this gain sharing
bonus.
SPEAKER_02 (05:49):
Which is tied to productivity, right?
SPEAKER_00 (05:51):
Directly.
And he says that bonus nearlydoubled in fiscal year 2020.
The first full year they wereall remote compared to the year
before the pandemic.
Now, to be fair, we have tostress this.
National grid, in its formalanswer, denied this specific
allegation.
SPEAKER_02 (06:06):
So they disputed the efficiency increase.
SPEAKER_00 (06:08):
They did.
But that data point itself,whether it's perfectly accurate
or not, it creates a powerfulstory for the jury.
SPEAKER_02 (06:15):
Of course.
SPEAKER_00 (06:16):
Even if the bonus didn't exactly double, the fact
that these critical employeeswere performing well enough to
earn big bonuses while at home,it just completely undercuts the
later argument that remote workis inherently risky.
SPEAKER_01 (06:28):
It suggests things were going pretty well.
SPEAKER_00 (06:30):
At the very least, robustly maintained.
SPEAKER_02 (06:33):
Okay, so now let's pivot to the personal side of
this.
Why this accommodation wasn'tjust a convenience, but a real
necessity for these two men.
Let's start with Luciano Russo'sdisabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (06:42):
Yeah, this is that's a lot.
He had a severe back injury from2005.
SPEAKER_02 (06:47):
So this is a long-term thing.
SPEAKER_00 (06:48):
A very long-term thing.
It left him with chronic pain,three herniated discs, seven
bulging discs, spinal stenosis.
SPEAKER_02 (06:56):
Aaron Powell I mean, that's just reading that list is
painful.
SPEAKER_00 (07:00):
It caused loss of feeling, mobility issues in his
back and legs.
So just sitting for a long timewas difficult.
A commute would be agonizing.
SPEAKER_02 (07:07):
But that wasn't even the whole story.
SPEAKER_00 (07:09):
Not even close.
Yeah.
And this is crucial for thejury's perspective.
He also had diabetes, which, youknow, was a major COVID risk
factor, even in 2022.
Right.
But most critically, he had thiscluster of severe
gastrointestinal conditions.
Right.
We're talking colitis, redundantcolon, severe IBS, and a pelvic
floor disorder.
(07:30):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (07:30):
And what that practically means is he needed
to be near a bathroom.
SPEAKER_00 (07:34):
Immediately, constantly, and with guaranteed
privacy.
SPEAKER_02 (07:37):
Let's just pause on that for a second because for a
lot of people, IBS is, you know,it's painful, but you manage it.
SPEAKER_00 (07:42):
For him, it wasn't just manageable pain.
The need for immediate bathroomaccess directly meant he
couldn't commute on a bus or atrain.
He couldn't work in a typicaloffice where the restroom might
be down the hall.
Or occupied.
Or occupied.
He couldn't just leave hiscritical dispatcher workstation
at a moment's notice in a busyoffice.
SPEAKER_02 (08:01):
So working from home where he controlled his
environment had a privatebathroom right there.
It wasn't a perk.
SPEAKER_00 (08:07):
It was a literal medical necessity.
And the company knew this.
When they started bringingpeople back on a hybrid schedule
in July 2021, Russo asked for anaccommodation to stay fully
remote, and they gave it to himfor a while.
SPEAKER_02 (08:21):
And his performance during this time was exemplary.
SPEAKER_00 (08:24):
The complaint makes a point of this.
He worked 526 hours of overtimein just the first seven months
of 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (08:31):
That is a stunning amount of overtime.
SPEAKER_00 (08:33):
It's a huge commitment.
It tells you the company wasrelying on him heavily, and that
his disability was absolutelynot stopping him from doing
high-quality, safety criticalwork from home.
SPEAKER_02 (08:42):
Okay, now let's turn to George Messiah.
His physical issues were alsoreally profound.
SPEAKER_00 (08:46):
They were.
He had severe back pain from afused hip joint, which was a
result of a surgery in 2014 foran old work injury.
Okay.
It left him with somethingcalled failed back surgery
syndrome.
It caused a noticeable limp, hisright leg was atrophied.
Again, commuting, sitting in anoffice chair for eight, 10
hours.
It was physically punishing forhim.
SPEAKER_02 (09:06):
And on top of that physical pain, he was also
dealing with significantemotional trauma.
SPEAKER_00 (09:11):
Yes, an anxiety disorder, which was triggered by
the loss of his son and hismother.
SPEAKER_02 (09:16):
So you have the physical and the mental health
components.
SPEAKER_00 (09:19):
Right.
And disability law covers both.
For someone dealing with thatlevel of physical pain and
anxiety, the stability andcontrol of a remote work
environment can be a criticalaccommodation.
It reduces the stress of acommute of public interaction.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Aaron Powell And like Russo, he also got an
accommodation in July 2021 tokeep working from home.
SPEAKER_00 (09:39):
He did, which established this year-long
precedent of successful remotework even after the main
pandemic mandate ended.
SPEAKER_02 (09:47):
So just to sum this part up, you have two
high-performing long-termemployees with thoroughly
documented disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (09:54):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (09:54):
And the accommodation they needed had
been working perfectly well fortwo full years.
SPEAKER_00 (09:59):
That's the essential context.
That's the stable ground rightbefore the conflict begins.
SPEAKER_02 (10:03):
And that stability came to a screeching halt in
mid-2022.
SPEAKER_00 (10:06):
Aaron Powell It did.
By May, June of that year,National Grid basically decided
the pandemic was over foreveryone, including people with
pre-existing non-COVID-relatedmedical issues.
SPEAKER_02 (10:18):
They told Russo and Messiah that their remote
accommodation was revoked.
Time to come back to the office.
SPEAKER_00 (10:23):
Report to the main office or an alternate location
in Greenpoint.
That was the directive.
SPEAKER_02 (10:27):
And what was their official reason?
SPEAKER_00 (10:29):
It was simple and consistent.
The nature of the emergency workthe service dispatch department
performs.
SPEAKER_02 (10:35):
So public safety.
SPEAKER_00 (10:36):
Public safety.
In their legal answer, theyconfirmed the trigger was that
the state's COVID lockdown ruleswere pretty much all gone by
early 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (10:45):
So, in their view, it was time to reset the clock
to pre-2020.
SPEAKER_00 (10:49):
Exactly.
They were trying to act likethose two years of successful
remote work just never happened.
SPEAKER_02 (10:53):
So let's trace this escalation because this is where
National Grid's actions start tolook legally questionable.
And it's probably why they endedup with those punitive damages.
Let's start with Russo.
SPEAKER_00 (11:04):
Aaron Powell Okay, so Russo gets the denial letter
in June 2022.
He does the right thing.
He engages with the medicaldepartment, specifically a woman
named Ann Stevenson, the healthservices manager.
SPEAKER_02 (11:15):
And he talks to her about his complex GI issues.
SPEAKER_00 (11:18):
He does.
And she acknowledges the need.
She asks him for updated medicaldocuments to extend his
accommodation until August 15th.
SPEAKER_02 (11:27):
So at first it seems like the interactive process is
working.
SPEAKER_00 (11:30):
It seems that way.
But it collapses and itcollapses fast.
Yeah.
By August 18th, the whole tonechanges from medical concern to
a labor confrontation.
SPEAKER_02 (11:40):
This is when Roger McKenzie gets involved, the
employee and labor relationsmanager.
SPEAKER_00 (11:45):
Right.
And he comes in hot.
He accuses Russo of disobeyingthe return to work order since
June 7th.
And he threatens him with a10-day suspension and
termination if he's not in theoffice by August 22nd.
SPEAKER_02 (11:55):
That's a huge jump from get us new documents to
you're fired.
SPEAKER_00 (12:00):
It's an immediate escalation to the highest level
of discipline.
SPEAKER_02 (12:02):
And Russo pushes back, right?
He says, Wait a minute, themedical department told me it
was okay.
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
He points directly to Ann Stevenson, saying she
gave him permission to keepworking remotely while they
sorted out the paperwork.
SPEAKER_02 (12:14):
Which is just a classic example of an internal
contradiction, isn't it?
One department says one thing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:19):
And another department is threatening to
fire you for doing it.
It creates this clear dispute offact about whether the company
was engaging in the process ingood faith.
SPEAKER_02 (12:29):
Because a core part of disability law is that good
faith engagement.
SPEAKER_00 (12:33):
It is.
And when labor relations isthreatening to fire you based on
a deadline that health servicesseems to have waived, it doesn't
look like good faith.
SPEAKER_02 (12:41):
The final formal denial comes on September 20th.
SPEAKER_00 (12:44):
Yes, from the manager of occupational health
programs, who just recycles thatgeneric line about the nature of
emergency work.
No specifics about why Russo'sremote work was a problem.
SPEAKER_02 (12:54):
And then you get this bizarre sequence of events
that must have been incrediblyconfusing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:58):
Oh, absolutely.
The very next day, September21st, Mackenzie tells him again,
return on September 26th or youare terminated.
SPEAKER_02 (13:06):
But at the same time.
SPEAKER_00 (13:08):
At the exact same time, he gets another letter
confirming he's been grantedFMLA Leave Family and Medical
Leave Act for his severeconditions, running all the way
through March 2023.
SPEAKER_02 (13:20):
I mean, how does that even work?
SPEAKER_00 (13:24):
It's a perfect example of why that jury
probably awarded punitivedamages.
You are acknowledging, on paper,that the employee is medically
incapable of workingconsistently.
SPEAKER_02 (13:34):
You're granting him FMLA for up to five absences a
month.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
Exactly.
But you are denying the onereasonable accommodation, remote
work that allows him to workproductively while managing that
condition.
SPEAKER_02 (13:47):
It seems like they were trying to cover their legal
bases on one hand while forcinghim out on the other.
SPEAKER_00 (13:52):
It certainly looks that way.
So Russo faced with being fired,he goes out on paid sick leave
in late September 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (13:58):
And Messiah's story is similar, but he had an even
clearer paper trail, didn't he?
SPEAKER_00 (14:02):
He did.
After the June denial letter, healso followed protocol.
He contacted the medicaldepartment and was given
explicit permission to continueremote work.
SPEAKER_02 (14:10):
As long as he kept providing doctors' notes.
SPEAKER_00 (14:12):
Which he did.
He followed the rules exactly.
SPEAKER_02 (14:14):
And yet on August 19th, he gets the same threat
letter from Roger Mackenzie.
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
The exact same one.
Falsely asserting that he'd beenrefusing to return without
permission since June.
SPEAKER_02 (14:25):
But he had permission.
SPEAKER_00 (14:26):
He did.
And he provided new doctor'snotes that were crystal clear,
saying he was more than capableto follow through his duties
from home.
SPEAKER_02 (14:34):
Didn't matter.
The final denial came onSeptember 20th for him, too.
SPEAKER_00 (14:37):
Right.
So unable to work remotely andmedically unable to return to
the office without severe pain,he also took paid sick leave
starting September 26th.
SPEAKER_02 (14:47):
And this brings us to the retaliation claims,
because this is where it getsreally ugly.
SPEAKER_00 (14:51):
It really does.
Both men are using their paidsick leave, which is a right
they have under their unioncontract.
This is how they're avoidingtermination while they fight
this.
SPEAKER_02 (15:00):
But then in January 2023, National Grid stops paying
them.
SPEAKER_00 (15:04):
They cut them off.
They reclassified them as sickno pay.
SPEAKER_02 (15:07):
And the plaintiffs immediately called this what it
was.
SPEAKER_00 (15:09):
Aaron Powell An unprecedented retaliatory denial
of sick leave.
The argument was simple.
National Grid was trying tofinancially choke them out, to
coerce them into dropping theirrequests or face total economic
ruin.
SPEAKER_02 (15:22):
Aaron Powell So this is where the legal claims really
solidify.
It's not just aboutaccommodation anymore.
SPEAKER_00 (15:27):
No, it's about aggressive employer misconduct.
The claims basically break downinto a few prongs.
SPEAKER_02 (15:33):
Okay, lay them out.
SPEAKER_00 (15:34):
First, the basic failure to provide reasonable
accommodation.
That's remote work.
SPEAKER_02 (15:39):
Despite two years of proof that it worked.
SPEAKER_00 (15:41):
Second, failure to engage in the interactive
process in good faith, citingall those mixed messages and
threats.
Third, failure to prove anycredible undue hardship.
SPEAKER_02 (15:51):
And the fourth prong, the retaliation.
SPEAKER_00 (15:53):
Right.
Specifically, denying their paidsick leave as punishment for
exercising their disabilityrights.
SPEAKER_02 (16:00):
So let's get into National Grids Defense,
especially on that sick leaveissue.
They tried to argue that thecourt shouldn't even be allowed
to hear that part of the case.
SPEAKER_00 (16:07):
This is where it gets legally complex, but it's a
critical move that companieswith unions often try.
They raised an affirmativedefense called Section 301
Preemption of the LaborManagement Relations Act.
SPEAKER_02 (16:20):
Okay, break that down for us.
What is Section 301 Preemption?
SPEAKER_00 (16:24):
Aaron Powell In simple terms, Section 301 says
that if a dispute is aboutinterpreting a collective
bargaining agreement, the CBA,the union contract, it has to be
handled through the grievanceand arbitration process in that
contract.
SPEAKER_02 (16:37):
Not in federal court.
SPEAKER_00 (16:38):
Not in federal court.
SPEAKER_02 (16:39):
So national grid was saying, hey, this sick leaf
policy is part of the unioncontract.
To decide if we applied itcorrectly, you have to interpret
the contract.
SPEAKER_00 (16:47):
Aaron Powell And therefore, federal court, you
have no jurisdiction here.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (16:51):
That's a pretty clever move.
SPEAKER_00 (16:52):
It's a very clever move.
If the judge had agreed, theplaintiffs would have lost the
retaliation claim in federalcourt.
They would have been forced intothe union's internal, maybe
slower, maybe less favorablegrievance process.
SPEAKER_02 (17:05):
Aaron Powell And it would have disconnected the
money issue from the disabilitydiscrimination claims.
SPEAKER_00 (17:10):
Trevor Burrus Exactly.
It was an attempt to sidelineone of the most powerful pieces
of evidence against them thatthey were trying to starve these
guys into submission.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (17:17):
So National Grid denied everything, said they
acted in good faith, and thentried this sophisticated legal
maneuver to get the money claimthrown out.
SPEAKER_00 (17:25):
Right.
But ultimately, the judge had todecide if there was enough
evidence to even have a jurytrial on the main issue, the
accommodation itself.
SPEAKER_02 (17:35):
And that leads us to the summary judgment phase.
SPEAKER_00 (17:37):
Right.
So before a trial, both sidesfile these motions for summary
judgment.
It's basically asking the judgethe evidence is so clear in our
favor, just end the case now.
No jury needed.
SPEAKER_02 (17:47):
And the judge's order from December 2024 denying
those motions.
You said this is maybe the mostinstructive document we have?
SPEAKER_00 (17:56):
I think so.
Because it lays out preciselywhy this case had to go to a
jury.
SPEAKER_02 (18:00):
The court said there were too many genuine disputes
of material fact.
And those disputes, they allcentered on one specific legal
question, didn't they?
SPEAKER_00 (18:09):
Almost entirely.
Look, for an ADA discriminationclaim, the plaintiff has to
prove three things.
One, you have a disability.
Two, the employer knew about it.
Okay.
And three, you can perform theessential functions of the job
with a reasonable accommodation.
SPEAKER_02 (18:24):
Aaron Powell And National Grid wasn't really
fighting the first two points.
SPEAKER_00 (18:27):
No.
For the purposes of this motion,they conceded them.
The entire battle was over thatthird point.
Was in-person attendance anessential function of being a
dispatcher?
SPEAKER_02 (18:41):
And let's define that term, essential function.
What does the law mean by that?
SPEAKER_00 (18:44):
It means a fundamental job duty, something
the employee must be able to do.
If you can't do an essentialfunction, you're not qualified
for the job, and the employerdoesn't have to accommodate you.
SPEAKER_02 (18:55):
As opposed to a marginal function, which is less
important.
SPEAKER_00 (18:58):
Right.
Something that can be shiftedaround.
So if remote work meant theycouldn't do an essential
function, National Grid wins.
If it only affected a marginalfunction, the plaintiffs win.
SPEAKER_02 (19:07):
And National Grid's argument here was powerful
because it was all about publicsafety.
SPEAKER_00 (19:12):
Absolutely.
They said, and I'm quoting here,in-person presence in the NYC
Dispatching Center is essentialto the safe and efficient
performance of the emergencyresponse duties of dispatcher.
SPEAKER_02 (19:24):
And they argued that their judgment on this it should
be given special weight.
SPEAKER_00 (19:29):
Considerable deference was the term.
The idea is we're the publicutility, we know how to keep
people safe from gas leaks.
The court shouldn't second guessus on this.
It's a very compelling argumenton its face.
SPEAKER_02 (19:40):
And they didn't just talk about general risk, they
brought up a specific,terrifying event from the past.
SPEAKER_00 (19:45):
They did.
They cited the 2014 East Harlemgas explosion.
And their argument was that withgas emergencies, mere seconds of
delay can have fatalconsequences.
SPEAKER_02 (19:56):
Now they had to admit that explosion wasn't
caused by a remote worker.
SPEAKER_00 (19:59):
Right.
But they used it as thispowerful emotional example of
the stakes.
They were painting a picturethat a delay caused by a home
internet outage wasn't just aninconvenience, it was
potentially fatal.
That remote work was gamblingwith lives.
SPEAKER_02 (20:13):
And they had specific technical arguments too
about the building itself.
SPEAKER_00 (20:16):
Yeah.
They pointed out that only thephysical dispatching center had
backup systems, like a massivesurge generator that could
restore power in 10 or 15seconds.
A failsafe you just don't haveat home.
SPEAKER_01 (20:27):
They also tried to discredit the two years of
successful remote work.
SPEAKER_00 (20:31):
They did.
They claimed that fordispatchers generally, the
pandemic led to someconnectivity issues and more
disciplinary problems.
They were trying to frame thatwhole period as a risky one-off
experiment, not a proven new wayof working.
SPEAKER_02 (20:46):
I mean, that sounds like a really strong case for
National Grid.
They're citing fatal explosions,backup generators.
How did the plaintiffs evenbegin to push back against that?
SPEAKER_00 (20:55):
They pushed back by using the company's own past
actions against them.
It was brilliant.
First, they just pointed to theundeniable facts, their own
stellar performance, the hugeamount of overtime they worked.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (21:06):
The productivity bonus that allegedly doubled.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (21:08):
Right.
Their point was if the job isessential and we performed it
flawlessly from home for twoyears, how can the location be
essential?
SPEAKER_02 (21:15):
That's the core conflict right there.
The employer defines the job,but the employee's performance
record defines what's possible.
SPEAKER_00 (21:22):
Exactly.
And then they went after thecredibility of the safety
claims.
They argued that if connectivitywas truly a life or death issue.
SPEAKER_02 (21:29):
If the lack of a home backup generator really put
the public at risk.
SPEAKER_00 (21:34):
Then why didn't National Grid mandate any
safeguard during the two yearseveryone was remote?
SPEAKER_02 (21:39):
That's a great point.
If it was that risky, they wouldhave required backup internet or
backup power supplies.
SPEAKER_00 (21:45):
Or at least a hardwired Ethernet connection.
But they didn't.
So the plaintiffs argued thatNational Grid was basically
blowing a minor inconvenience, aconnectivity glitch up, into a
life-threatening crisis just tojustify a return to office
policy.
SPEAKER_02 (21:59):
And there was evidence of another remote
employee in a similar role thathurt their case too.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
Yes.
They showed that at least oneother employee, a call center
representative, who takes theinitial emergency reports and
creates the work orders for thedispatchers, was allowed to work
from home.
SPEAKER_02 (22:15):
So the person taking the first panicked call is
remote?
SPEAKER_00 (22:17):
But the person who then assigns the truck to that
call has to be in the building.
It creates this inconsistencythat makes you question where
the real essential work ishappening.
SPEAKER_02 (22:28):
So let's talk about how the judge sorted this out.
The judge recognized the safetyissues, but still said it had to
go to a jury.
SPEAKER_00 (22:35):
The judge found that while the public safety concerns
were legitimate, the specificfacts here were different from
the usual cases.
How so?
The judge said the casesnational grid cited, which
involved jobs like bus driverswho have to see traffic lights,
or firefighters who pose aphysical risk.
Those were materiallydistinguishable.
SPEAKER_02 (22:55):
Because a dispatcher isn't a firefighter.
SPEAKER_00 (22:57):
Exactly.
A dispatcher's job iscommunication and information
management.
They direct the response.
They aren't the respondersthemselves.
The accommodation they wereasking for wasn't to waive a
physical task, it was to dotheir desk-based tech-heavy job
from a different desk.
SPEAKER_02 (23:11):
And the two years of successful performance just
destroyed the argument that itwas impossible.
SPEAKER_00 (23:16):
It completely invalidated the idea that
physical presence wasautomatically essential.
So for the ADA and the state lawclaims, the judge said there are
too many conflicting facts here.
A jury has to decide.
SPEAKER_02 (23:29):
But then you have the New York City human rights
law, the NYCHRL, and you saidthat law changes everything.
SPEAKER_00 (23:36):
It dramatically changes the playing field.
SPEAKER_02 (23:37):
Explain how.
How does it shift the burden ofproof?
SPEAKER_00 (23:41):
Okay.
So under the federal ADA and thestate law, the plaintiff has to
first prove they're qualifiedand can do the job with an
accommodation.
Then the employer can try toprove that accommodation causes
an undue hardship.
It's a back and forth.
SPEAKER_02 (23:55):
Burden shifting framework.
SPEAKER_00 (23:56):
Right.
The New York City law justthrows that out.
The NYCHRL is one of the mostprotective civil rights laws in
the country.
It defines disability incrediblybroadly and critically.
It puts the entire burden ofproof on the employer from the
very start.
SPEAKER_02 (24:11):
So National Grid had to prove that the accommodation
wouldn't work or would cause ahardship.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Exactly.
The employee doesn't have thatfirst hurdle.
The employer has to prove theycan't do it.
SPEAKER_02 (24:20):
So even if there were some doubts under the ADA,
the city law gave the plaintiffsthis huge safety net.
SPEAKER_00 (24:26):
A huge one.
National Grid had to prove, withconcrete evidence, that letting
these two men work from home wasunsafe or caused an undue
hardship.
And with two years of highproductivity on the record, that
was nearly impossible to dowithout a trial.
SPEAKER_02 (24:40):
The judge basically said, You haven't provided a
definitive answer, so under thecity law, this is going to a
jury.
SPEAKER_00 (24:46):
Absolutely.
And you have to think nationalgrid's behavior here.
SPEAKER_02 (24:49):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (24:50):
The immediate termination threats, ignoring
the medical documentation, theybasically forfeited any claim
that they had engaged in thatinteractive process in good
faith.
SPEAKER_02 (24:59):
Aaron Powell, which is often what protects a company
from those huge punitive damageawards.
SPEAKER_00 (25:04):
Aaron Powell That lack of good faith plus the
contradiction of granting FMLAwhile denying remote work.
It just creates this narrativeof intentional bad acting.
And that is the story the juryended up hearing.
SPEAKER_02 (25:15):
Aaron Powell So the case goes to trial, and we have
the final verdict sheet datedOctober 25, 2025.
This is the jury's final word oneverything.
SPEAKER_00 (25:22):
Aaron Powell And the findings are just overwhelming.
SPEAKER_02 (25:25):
A complete sweep for the plaintiffs.
SPEAKER_00 (25:26):
A complete sweep.
The jury had to answer specificquestions for each of the three
laws.
And for both Russo and Messiah,they found National Grid failed
to provide a reasonableaccommodation under the ADA,
under the state law, and underthe city law.
SPEAKER_02 (25:41):
But the really critical question was about
undue hardship, wasn't it?
The jury was asked, for eachlaw, did National Grid prove
that letting this person workfrom home would be an undue
hardship?
SPEAKER_00 (25:51):
And their answer was a direct and total rejection of
National Grid's entire publicsafety defense.
A resounding no.
For both men, under all threelaws, the jury explicitly looked
at the arguments, the gasexplosion, the backup
generators, the theoreticalrisks, and said, Nope.
We believe that two years ofsuccessful remote work.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
And now the consequences.
Let's talk about the money,starting with Luciana Russo.
SPEAKER_00 (26:15):
So Russo was awarded $500,000 in back pay.
SPEAKER_02 (26:18):
To compensate for the wages he lost when they cut
him off.
SPEAKER_00 (26:20):
Right.
And for emotional distress, hereceived$60,000.
SPEAKER_02 (26:24):
And then the punitive damages.
The part where the jury says, wethink you acted recklessly and
intentionally.
SPEAKER_00 (26:31):
Yes.
Russo was awarded a massive$1million in punitive damages.
Wow.
Bringing his total to$1,560,000.
That million dollars isn'tcompensation.
It's a penalty.
It's a warning.
SPEAKER_02 (26:47):
And a direct indictment of the company's
behavior.
SPEAKER_00 (26:49):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (26:50):
Okay, now for George Messiah, his back pay was
different because he actuallywent back to work in person in
July 2023.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (26:57):
Right.
So his wage loss period wasshorter.
He was awarded$275,000 in backpay.
SPEAKER_02 (27:03):
But his emotional distress award was higher than
Russo's.
SPEAKER_00 (27:06):
It was$175,000.
And you can speculate that maybethat reflects the severe
physical pain of being forcedback into the office, plus the
anxiety triggers he detailed inhis complaint.
SPEAKER_02 (27:16):
And did he also get that massive punitive award?
SPEAKER_00 (27:18):
He did.
Another$1 million in punitivedamages for a total award of
$1,450,000.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (27:25):
So the combined punitive damages award is two
million dollars.
SPEAKER_00 (27:31):
And juries do not take that lightly.
They reserve that for caseswhere they feel the company
acted with just extraordinaryindifference or malice toward an
employee's rights.
SPEAKER_02 (27:40):
Now the plaintiffs had originally asked for$10
million in punitives, so this isless than that, but it's still a
devastating blow.
SPEAKER_00 (27:46):
Oh, absolutely.
The implication of that$2million award is undeniable.
The jury concluded National Gridwasn't just, you know, mistaken
about the law.
SPEAKER_02 (27:54):
They concluded that management acted with calculated
hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (27:58):
Exactly.
Especially with thosetermination threats and cutting
off sick pay, they punished themfor seeking an accommodation.
SPEAKER_02 (28:04):
This trial feels like it has just redefined
essential function for desk jobsin our post-pandemic world.
SPEAKER_00 (28:10):
It has to.
If a safety critical utilitycompany can't successfully
defend an in-person requirementfor a dispatcher who has a
two-year record of flawlessremote work, then who can?
SPEAKER_02 (28:22):
It sets a whole new standard.
An employer can't just point toan old job description from 2019
and say, see, in-personattendance is essential.
SPEAKER_00 (28:31):
No.
They now have to overcome theemployee's documented history of
success.
If remote work was fine for twoyears and productivity was high,
the burden to prove unduehardship now becomes almost
insurmountable.
SPEAKER_02 (28:45):
The jury's decision basically says, documented
success beats speculative risk.
SPEAKER_00 (28:51):
Every time.
And it's also just this powerfulvalidation of how protective the
New York City human rights lawreally is.
Because it put the whole burdenon national grid, it made it so
much easier for the jury toreject those generalized safety
arguments.
SPEAKER_02 (29:04):
So when we boil it all down, what does this all
mean?
SPEAKER_00 (29:07):
The key lesson from Russo versus National Grid for
any employer is this you cannotrely solely on your own internal
judgment of what a job requires.
And you can't rely on thesevague, speculative claims about
safety or efficiency.
SPEAKER_02 (29:20):
Documentation is king.
SPEAKER_00 (29:21):
Completely.
When an employee has adocumented high performance
while working remotely, theemployer has to provide
explicit, concrete evidence thatcontinuing that accommodation
now causes a specific,quantifiable hardship.
SPEAKER_02 (29:33):
Not a theoretical one.
SPEAKER_00 (29:35):
Not a theoretical one.
And under a law like the NYCHRL,even a powerful appeal to public
safety, like a gas explosion, itjust won't be enough if you
can't prove it in this specificemployee's case.
SPEAKER_02 (29:47):
Aaron Powell And the failure to just talk to them, to
engage in that interactiveprocess, honestly, that's what
opened the door for the punitivedamages.
SPEAKER_00 (29:55):
The jury didn't just find a technical mistake.
That$2 million punitive awardsays they believed National Grid
acted with callous, deliberate,reckless disregard for their
employees' rights.
They punished them for beingdisabled.
SPEAKER_02 (30:09):
Which leaves this important question for you, the
learner, to really think aboutas the professional world keeps
changing.
In a world where productivitywas proven at home for millions
of people for two years, howhigh must the bar be for an
employer to legally declareremote work and undue hardship
for a disabled employee?
SPEAKER_00 (30:26):
And this case suggests that bar is way higher
than many employers, especiallythose who rely on historical
risks, ever thought it was.
The legal landscape hasfundamentally shifted.
Documented remote Remote successis now the ultimate evidence
against an essential functiondefense.
Okay, let's unpack this.
SPEAKER_00 (00:38):
Aaron Powell Let's do it.
SPEAKER_02 (00:38):
Aaron Powell We are diving into a case that just it
perfectly captures this defininglegal tension of the
post-pandemic workplace.
Oh, absolutely.
It's this abrupt collisionbetween employers saying
everybody back to the office andthe established legal rights of
employees with disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (00:56):
Aaron Powell And this isn't just some internal HR
memo gone wrong.
This is about whether a majorpublic utility can legally force
employees to commute when thosesame employees have proven they
can do their safety critical jobsuccessfully from home.
SPEAKER_02 (01:10):
Aaron Powell Right.
So we're looking at the landmarkcase of Luciano Russo and George
Messiah versus National GridUSA.
SPEAKER_00 (01:16):
Aaron Ross Powell And what makes this deep dive so
potent is that we're not justrelying on news clippings or
summaries.
We have the whole anatomy of thelegal fight.
We've got the plaintiff'sdetailed second amendment
complaint, which lays out theentire factual story.
SPEAKER_02 (01:30):
Then we have the defendant's formal answer, their
side of the story.
SPEAKER_00 (01:32):
Aaron Powell And the court's pivotal order denying
summary judgment, which is wherethe judge lays out why this has
to go to a jury.
SPEAKER_02 (01:39):
And finally, the big one the dramatic, financially
devastating jury verdict sheet,the final word.
Exactly.
Our mission today is well, it'ssurgical.
We need to understand how afight over working from home, a
setup that was forced oneveryone by COVID, how did that
mushroom into this hugedisability lawsuit?
(02:01):
We're talking federal, state,and city disability laws, the
ADA, the NYSHRL.
SPEAKER_00 (02:07):
And the big one, the New York City human rights law,
the NYCHRL, which is notoriouslyemployee protective.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (02:14):
And it's all applied to a desk job at a huge utility
company.
SPEAKER_00 (02:17):
And here's where it gets really interesting.
SPEAKER_02 (02:19):
Yeah, let's get to the bottom line.
SPEAKER_00 (02:20):
The jury found for the plaintiffs decisively on
everything.
They completely rejectedNational Grid's core defense
that being in the office was anessential function for public
safety.
SPEAKER_02 (02:31):
And the price tag for that loss.
SPEAKER_00 (02:33):
Staggering.
Over three million dollarscombined, and a huge chunk of
that with punitive damages.
SPEAKER_02 (02:38):
Which means the jury thought the company acted badly.
SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
Very badly.
This verdict is just amonumental warning shot to any
employer trying to defineessential functions now that
remote work has a proven trackrecord.
SPEAKER_02 (02:51):
Okay, so let's set the scene.
The defendant here is NationalGrid USA.
SPEAKER_00 (02:55):
Aaron Powell Right.
And we need to be clear this isnot some small startup.
This is a massive criticalinfrastructure provider, a gas
utility that serves the entireNortheast.
SPEAKER_02 (03:05):
With huge offices right in Brooklyn, New York,
we're talking about a companywhose whole business is public
safety and essential services.
SPEAKER_00 (03:14):
Exactly.
And the plaintiffs, Russo andMessiah, they weren't just
random employees.
They were in specialized rolesright at the heart of those
essential services.
They were dispatchers.
SPEAKER_02 (03:24):
And this is key.
While their jobs are absolutelysafety critical, they are
fundamentally sedentary.
They're based on communicationcoordination.
SPEAKER_00 (03:31):
All done on computers and phones.
Understanding what they actuallydid every day is, I think, vital
to understanding the whole case.
SPEAKER_02 (03:38):
So let's detail that.
Luciano Russo, he'd been withthe company a while, got
promoted to distribution centraldispatcher back in 2013.
SPEAKER_00 (03:45):
And his focus was incredibly high stakes.
Oh, yeah.
He handled emergency jobs forunderground street leaks.
We're talking gas mains, servicelines.
SPEAKER_02 (03:54):
The kind of thing that makes the news if it goes
wrong.
SPEAKER_00 (03:57):
Exactly.
His job was to use specializedcomputer systems to classify the
work, track where the crewswere, and coordinate the
response with the foreman in thefield.
He was the communication hub.
SPEAKER_02 (04:08):
The link between the emergency call and the guys on
the street fixing the leak.
SPEAKER_00 (04:12):
Right.
And then you have GeorgeMessiah, also a veteran, the
company since 2001.
He was a central meter servicesdispatcher.
SPEAKER_02 (04:19):
So a similar role?
SPEAKER_00 (04:21):
Similar, but a bit different.
He also used computers andphones to assign crews, but he
handled a mix of planned jobsand emergencies.
SPEAKER_02 (04:29):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (04:29):
But Messiah had this other layer of responsibility.
He was an elected union delegatefor the dispatcher group.
SPEAKER_02 (04:35):
So he knew the contract inside and out.
SPEAKER_00 (04:37):
Intimately.
Not at all.
It was proven by necessity.
March 2020 hits, the world shutsdown.
SPEAKER_02 (04:58):
The COVID lockdown.
SPEAKER_00 (04:59):
And New York State issues a mandate.
So National Grid sends all ofits dispatchers home to work.
SPEAKER_02 (05:05):
This becomes the linchpin of the whole case,
doesn't it?
SPEAKER_00 (05:08):
It's a massive piece of evidence.
I mean, think about it.
National Grid, a company that isabout to argue that public
safety is paramount and requiresin-person work.
Right.
They successfully executed thishuge technological pivot.
They installed secure laptops,all the software, specialized
phone hookups, so that everysingle dispatcher could plug
(05:28):
into the office systems fromtheir own homes.
SPEAKER_02 (05:31):
And for two full years, the company basically
admitted, just by its actions,that the job could be done
remotely.
SPEAKER_00 (05:37):
Precisely.
SPEAKER_02 (05:38):
And it wasn't just that they could do the job, the
plaintiff's alleged performanceactually got better.
SPEAKER_00 (05:44):
Significantly better.
Russo's complaint specificallymentions this gain sharing
bonus.
SPEAKER_02 (05:49):
Which is tied to productivity, right?
SPEAKER_00 (05:51):
Directly.
And he says that bonus nearlydoubled in fiscal year 2020.
The first full year they wereall remote compared to the year
before the pandemic.
Now, to be fair, we have tostress this.
National grid, in its formalanswer, denied this specific
allegation.
SPEAKER_02 (06:06):
So they disputed the efficiency increase.
SPEAKER_00 (06:08):
They did.
But that data point itself,whether it's perfectly accurate
or not, it creates a powerfulstory for the jury.
SPEAKER_02 (06:15):
Of course.
SPEAKER_00 (06:16):
Even if the bonus didn't exactly double, the fact
that these critical employeeswere performing well enough to
earn big bonuses while at home,it just completely undercuts the
later argument that remote workis inherently risky.
SPEAKER_01 (06:28):
It suggests things were going pretty well.
SPEAKER_00 (06:30):
At the very least, robustly maintained.
SPEAKER_02 (06:33):
Okay, so now let's pivot to the personal side of
this.
Why this accommodation wasn'tjust a convenience, but a real
necessity for these two men.
Let's start with Luciano Russo'sdisabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (06:42):
Yeah, this is that's a lot.
He had a severe back injury from2005.
SPEAKER_02 (06:47):
So this is a long-term thing.
SPEAKER_00 (06:48):
A very long-term thing.
It left him with chronic pain,three herniated discs, seven
bulging discs, spinal stenosis.
SPEAKER_02 (06:56):
Aaron Powell I mean, that's just reading that list is
painful.
SPEAKER_00 (07:00):
It caused loss of feeling, mobility issues in his
back and legs.
So just sitting for a long timewas difficult.
A commute would be agonizing.
SPEAKER_02 (07:07):
But that wasn't even the whole story.
SPEAKER_00 (07:09):
Not even close.
Yeah.
And this is crucial for thejury's perspective.
He also had diabetes, which, youknow, was a major COVID risk
factor, even in 2022.
Right.
But most critically, he had thiscluster of severe
gastrointestinal conditions.
Right.
We're talking colitis, redundantcolon, severe IBS, and a pelvic
floor disorder.
(07:30):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (07:30):
And what that practically means is he needed
to be near a bathroom.
SPEAKER_00 (07:34):
Immediately, constantly, and with guaranteed
privacy.
SPEAKER_02 (07:37):
Let's just pause on that for a second because for a
lot of people, IBS is, you know,it's painful, but you manage it.
SPEAKER_00 (07:42):
For him, it wasn't just manageable pain.
The need for immediate bathroomaccess directly meant he
couldn't commute on a bus or atrain.
He couldn't work in a typicaloffice where the restroom might
be down the hall.
Or occupied.
Or occupied.
He couldn't just leave hiscritical dispatcher workstation
at a moment's notice in a busyoffice.
SPEAKER_02 (08:01):
So working from home where he controlled his
environment had a privatebathroom right there.
It wasn't a perk.
SPEAKER_00 (08:07):
It was a literal medical necessity.
And the company knew this.
When they started bringingpeople back on a hybrid schedule
in July 2021, Russo asked for anaccommodation to stay fully
remote, and they gave it to himfor a while.
SPEAKER_02 (08:21):
And his performance during this time was exemplary.
SPEAKER_00 (08:24):
The complaint makes a point of this.
He worked 526 hours of overtimein just the first seven months
of 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (08:31):
That is a stunning amount of overtime.
SPEAKER_00 (08:33):
It's a huge commitment.
It tells you the company wasrelying on him heavily, and that
his disability was absolutelynot stopping him from doing
high-quality, safety criticalwork from home.
SPEAKER_02 (08:42):
Okay, now let's turn to George Messiah.
His physical issues were alsoreally profound.
SPEAKER_00 (08:46):
They were.
He had severe back pain from afused hip joint, which was a
result of a surgery in 2014 foran old work injury.
Okay.
It left him with somethingcalled failed back surgery
syndrome.
It caused a noticeable limp, hisright leg was atrophied.
Again, commuting, sitting in anoffice chair for eight, 10
hours.
It was physically punishing forhim.
SPEAKER_02 (09:06):
And on top of that physical pain, he was also
dealing with significantemotional trauma.
SPEAKER_00 (09:11):
Yes, an anxiety disorder, which was triggered by
the loss of his son and hismother.
SPEAKER_02 (09:16):
So you have the physical and the mental health
components.
SPEAKER_00 (09:19):
Right.
And disability law covers both.
For someone dealing with thatlevel of physical pain and
anxiety, the stability andcontrol of a remote work
environment can be a criticalaccommodation.
It reduces the stress of acommute of public interaction.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Aaron Powell And like Russo, he also got an
accommodation in July 2021 tokeep working from home.
SPEAKER_00 (09:39):
He did, which established this year-long
precedent of successful remotework even after the main
pandemic mandate ended.
SPEAKER_02 (09:47):
So just to sum this part up, you have two
high-performing long-termemployees with thoroughly
documented disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (09:54):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (09:54):
And the accommodation they needed had
been working perfectly well fortwo full years.
SPEAKER_00 (09:59):
That's the essential context.
That's the stable ground rightbefore the conflict begins.
SPEAKER_02 (10:03):
And that stability came to a screeching halt in
mid-2022.
SPEAKER_00 (10:06):
Aaron Powell It did.
By May, June of that year,National Grid basically decided
the pandemic was over foreveryone, including people with
pre-existing non-COVID-relatedmedical issues.
SPEAKER_02 (10:18):
They told Russo and Messiah that their remote
accommodation was revoked.
Time to come back to the office.
SPEAKER_00 (10:23):
Report to the main office or an alternate location
in Greenpoint.
That was the directive.
SPEAKER_02 (10:27):
And what was their official reason?
SPEAKER_00 (10:29):
It was simple and consistent.
The nature of the emergency workthe service dispatch department
performs.
SPEAKER_02 (10:35):
So public safety.
SPEAKER_00 (10:36):
Public safety.
In their legal answer, theyconfirmed the trigger was that
the state's COVID lockdown ruleswere pretty much all gone by
early 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (10:45):
So, in their view, it was time to reset the clock
to pre-2020.
SPEAKER_00 (10:49):
Exactly.
They were trying to act likethose two years of successful
remote work just never happened.
SPEAKER_02 (10:53):
So let's trace this escalation because this is where
National Grid's actions start tolook legally questionable.
And it's probably why they endedup with those punitive damages.
Let's start with Russo.
SPEAKER_00 (11:04):
Aaron Powell Okay, so Russo gets the denial letter
in June 2022.
He does the right thing.
He engages with the medicaldepartment, specifically a woman
named Ann Stevenson, the healthservices manager.
SPEAKER_02 (11:15):
And he talks to her about his complex GI issues.
SPEAKER_00 (11:18):
He does.
And she acknowledges the need.
She asks him for updated medicaldocuments to extend his
accommodation until August 15th.
SPEAKER_02 (11:27):
So at first it seems like the interactive process is
working.
SPEAKER_00 (11:30):
It seems that way.
But it collapses and itcollapses fast.
Yeah.
By August 18th, the whole tonechanges from medical concern to
a labor confrontation.
SPEAKER_02 (11:40):
This is when Roger McKenzie gets involved, the
employee and labor relationsmanager.
SPEAKER_00 (11:45):
Right.
And he comes in hot.
He accuses Russo of disobeyingthe return to work order since
June 7th.
And he threatens him with a10-day suspension and
termination if he's not in theoffice by August 22nd.
SPEAKER_02 (11:55):
That's a huge jump from get us new documents to
you're fired.
SPEAKER_00 (12:00):
It's an immediate escalation to the highest level
of discipline.
SPEAKER_02 (12:02):
And Russo pushes back, right?
He says, Wait a minute, themedical department told me it
was okay.
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
He points directly to Ann Stevenson, saying she
gave him permission to keepworking remotely while they
sorted out the paperwork.
SPEAKER_02 (12:14):
Which is just a classic example of an internal
contradiction, isn't it?
One department says one thing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:19):
And another department is threatening to
fire you for doing it.
It creates this clear dispute offact about whether the company
was engaging in the process ingood faith.
SPEAKER_02 (12:29):
Because a core part of disability law is that good
faith engagement.
SPEAKER_00 (12:33):
It is.
And when labor relations isthreatening to fire you based on
a deadline that health servicesseems to have waived, it doesn't
look like good faith.
SPEAKER_02 (12:41):
The final formal denial comes on September 20th.
SPEAKER_00 (12:44):
Yes, from the manager of occupational health
programs, who just recycles thatgeneric line about the nature of
emergency work.
No specifics about why Russo'sremote work was a problem.
SPEAKER_02 (12:54):
And then you get this bizarre sequence of events
that must have been incrediblyconfusing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:58):
Oh, absolutely.
The very next day, September21st, Mackenzie tells him again,
return on September 26th or youare terminated.
SPEAKER_02 (13:06):
But at the same time.
SPEAKER_00 (13:08):
At the exact same time, he gets another letter
confirming he's been grantedFMLA Leave Family and Medical
Leave Act for his severeconditions, running all the way
through March 2023.
SPEAKER_02 (13:20):
I mean, how does that even work?
SPEAKER_00 (13:24):
It's a perfect example of why that jury
probably awarded punitivedamages.
You are acknowledging, on paper,that the employee is medically
incapable of workingconsistently.
SPEAKER_02 (13:34):
You're granting him FMLA for up to five absences a
month.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
Exactly.
But you are denying the onereasonable accommodation, remote
work that allows him to workproductively while managing that
condition.
SPEAKER_02 (13:47):
It seems like they were trying to cover their legal
bases on one hand while forcinghim out on the other.
SPEAKER_00 (13:52):
It certainly looks that way.
So Russo faced with being fired,he goes out on paid sick leave
in late September 2022.
SPEAKER_02 (13:58):
And Messiah's story is similar, but he had an even
clearer paper trail, didn't he?
SPEAKER_00 (14:02):
He did.
After the June denial letter, healso followed protocol.
He contacted the medicaldepartment and was given
explicit permission to continueremote work.
SPEAKER_02 (14:10):
As long as he kept providing doctors' notes.
SPEAKER_00 (14:12):
Which he did.
He followed the rules exactly.
SPEAKER_02 (14:14):
And yet on August 19th, he gets the same threat
letter from Roger Mackenzie.
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
The exact same one.
Falsely asserting that he'd beenrefusing to return without
permission since June.
SPEAKER_02 (14:25):
But he had permission.
SPEAKER_00 (14:26):
He did.
And he provided new doctor'snotes that were crystal clear,
saying he was more than capableto follow through his duties
from home.
SPEAKER_02 (14:34):
Didn't matter.
The final denial came onSeptember 20th for him, too.
SPEAKER_00 (14:37):
Right.
So unable to work remotely andmedically unable to return to
the office without severe pain,he also took paid sick leave
starting September 26th.
SPEAKER_02 (14:47):
And this brings us to the retaliation claims,
because this is where it getsreally ugly.
SPEAKER_00 (14:51):
It really does.
Both men are using their paidsick leave, which is a right
they have under their unioncontract.
This is how they're avoidingtermination while they fight
this.
SPEAKER_02 (15:00):
But then in January 2023, National Grid stops paying
them.
SPEAKER_00 (15:04):
They cut them off.
They reclassified them as sickno pay.
SPEAKER_02 (15:07):
And the plaintiffs immediately called this what it
was.
SPEAKER_00 (15:09):
Aaron Powell An unprecedented retaliatory denial
of sick leave.
The argument was simple.
National Grid was trying tofinancially choke them out, to
coerce them into dropping theirrequests or face total economic
ruin.
SPEAKER_02 (15:22):
Aaron Powell So this is where the legal claims really
solidify.
It's not just aboutaccommodation anymore.
SPEAKER_00 (15:27):
No, it's about aggressive employer misconduct.
The claims basically break downinto a few prongs.
SPEAKER_02 (15:33):
Okay, lay them out.
SPEAKER_00 (15:34):
First, the basic failure to provide reasonable
accommodation.
That's remote work.
SPEAKER_02 (15:39):
Despite two years of proof that it worked.
SPEAKER_00 (15:41):
Second, failure to engage in the interactive
process in good faith, citingall those mixed messages and
threats.
Third, failure to prove anycredible undue hardship.
SPEAKER_02 (15:51):
And the fourth prong, the retaliation.
SPEAKER_00 (15:53):
Right.
Specifically, denying their paidsick leave as punishment for
exercising their disabilityrights.
SPEAKER_02 (16:00):
So let's get into National Grids Defense,
especially on that sick leaveissue.
They tried to argue that thecourt shouldn't even be allowed
to hear that part of the case.
SPEAKER_00 (16:07):
This is where it gets legally complex, but it's a
critical move that companieswith unions often try.
They raised an affirmativedefense called Section 301
Preemption of the LaborManagement Relations Act.
SPEAKER_02 (16:20):
Okay, break that down for us.
What is Section 301 Preemption?
SPEAKER_00 (16:24):
Aaron Powell In simple terms, Section 301 says
that if a dispute is aboutinterpreting a collective
bargaining agreement, the CBA,the union contract, it has to be
handled through the grievanceand arbitration process in that
contract.
SPEAKER_02 (16:37):
Not in federal court.
SPEAKER_00 (16:38):
Not in federal court.
SPEAKER_02 (16:39):
So national grid was saying, hey, this sick leaf
policy is part of the unioncontract.
To decide if we applied itcorrectly, you have to interpret
the contract.
SPEAKER_00 (16:47):
Aaron Powell And therefore, federal court, you
have no jurisdiction here.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (16:51):
That's a pretty clever move.
SPEAKER_00 (16:52):
It's a very clever move.
If the judge had agreed, theplaintiffs would have lost the
retaliation claim in federalcourt.
They would have been forced intothe union's internal, maybe
slower, maybe less favorablegrievance process.
SPEAKER_02 (17:05):
Aaron Powell And it would have disconnected the
money issue from the disabilitydiscrimination claims.
SPEAKER_00 (17:10):
Trevor Burrus Exactly.
It was an attempt to sidelineone of the most powerful pieces
of evidence against them thatthey were trying to starve these
guys into submission.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (17:17):
So National Grid denied everything, said they
acted in good faith, and thentried this sophisticated legal
maneuver to get the money claimthrown out.
SPEAKER_00 (17:25):
Right.
But ultimately, the judge had todecide if there was enough
evidence to even have a jurytrial on the main issue, the
accommodation itself.
SPEAKER_02 (17:35):
And that leads us to the summary judgment phase.
SPEAKER_00 (17:37):
Right.
So before a trial, both sidesfile these motions for summary
judgment.
It's basically asking the judgethe evidence is so clear in our
favor, just end the case now.
No jury needed.
SPEAKER_02 (17:47):
And the judge's order from December 2024 denying
those motions.
You said this is maybe the mostinstructive document we have?
SPEAKER_00 (17:56):
I think so.
Because it lays out preciselywhy this case had to go to a
jury.
SPEAKER_02 (18:00):
The court said there were too many genuine disputes
of material fact.
And those disputes, they allcentered on one specific legal
question, didn't they?
SPEAKER_00 (18:09):
Almost entirely.
Look, for an ADA discriminationclaim, the plaintiff has to
prove three things.
One, you have a disability.
Two, the employer knew about it.
Okay.
And three, you can perform theessential functions of the job
with a reasonable accommodation.
SPEAKER_02 (18:24):
Aaron Powell And National Grid wasn't really
fighting the first two points.
SPEAKER_00 (18:27):
No.
For the purposes of this motion,they conceded them.
The entire battle was over thatthird point.
Was in-person attendance anessential function of being a
dispatcher?
SPEAKER_02 (18:41):
And let's define that term, essential function.
What does the law mean by that?
SPEAKER_00 (18:44):
It means a fundamental job duty, something
the employee must be able to do.
If you can't do an essentialfunction, you're not qualified
for the job, and the employerdoesn't have to accommodate you.
SPEAKER_02 (18:55):
As opposed to a marginal function, which is less
important.
SPEAKER_00 (18:58):
Right.
Something that can be shiftedaround.
So if remote work meant theycouldn't do an essential
function, National Grid wins.
If it only affected a marginalfunction, the plaintiffs win.
SPEAKER_02 (19:07):
And National Grid's argument here was powerful
because it was all about publicsafety.
SPEAKER_00 (19:12):
Absolutely.
They said, and I'm quoting here,in-person presence in the NYC
Dispatching Center is essentialto the safe and efficient
performance of the emergencyresponse duties of dispatcher.
SPEAKER_02 (19:24):
And they argued that their judgment on this it should
be given special weight.
SPEAKER_00 (19:29):
Considerable deference was the term.
The idea is we're the publicutility, we know how to keep
people safe from gas leaks.
The court shouldn't second guessus on this.
It's a very compelling argumenton its face.
SPEAKER_02 (19:40):
And they didn't just talk about general risk, they
brought up a specific,terrifying event from the past.
SPEAKER_00 (19:45):
They did.
They cited the 2014 East Harlemgas explosion.
And their argument was that withgas emergencies, mere seconds of
delay can have fatalconsequences.
SPEAKER_02 (19:56):
Now they had to admit that explosion wasn't
caused by a remote worker.
SPEAKER_00 (19:59):
Right.
But they used it as thispowerful emotional example of
the stakes.
They were painting a picturethat a delay caused by a home
internet outage wasn't just aninconvenience, it was
potentially fatal.
That remote work was gamblingwith lives.
SPEAKER_02 (20:13):
And they had specific technical arguments too
about the building itself.
SPEAKER_00 (20:16):
Yeah.
They pointed out that only thephysical dispatching center had
backup systems, like a massivesurge generator that could
restore power in 10 or 15seconds.
A failsafe you just don't haveat home.
SPEAKER_01 (20:27):
They also tried to discredit the two years of
successful remote work.
SPEAKER_00 (20:31):
They did.
They claimed that fordispatchers generally, the
pandemic led to someconnectivity issues and more
disciplinary problems.
They were trying to frame thatwhole period as a risky one-off
experiment, not a proven new wayof working.
SPEAKER_02 (20:46):
I mean, that sounds like a really strong case for
National Grid.
They're citing fatal explosions,backup generators.
How did the plaintiffs evenbegin to push back against that?
SPEAKER_00 (20:55):
They pushed back by using the company's own past
actions against them.
It was brilliant.
First, they just pointed to theundeniable facts, their own
stellar performance, the hugeamount of overtime they worked.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (21:06):
The productivity bonus that allegedly doubled.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (21:08):
Right.
Their point was if the job isessential and we performed it
flawlessly from home for twoyears, how can the location be
essential?
SPEAKER_02 (21:15):
That's the core conflict right there.
The employer defines the job,but the employee's performance
record defines what's possible.
SPEAKER_00 (21:22):
Exactly.
And then they went after thecredibility of the safety
claims.
They argued that if connectivitywas truly a life or death issue.
SPEAKER_02 (21:29):
If the lack of a home backup generator really put
the public at risk.
SPEAKER_00 (21:34):
Then why didn't National Grid mandate any
safeguard during the two yearseveryone was remote?
SPEAKER_02 (21:39):
That's a great point.
If it was that risky, they wouldhave required backup internet or
backup power supplies.
SPEAKER_00 (21:45):
Or at least a hardwired Ethernet connection.
But they didn't.
So the plaintiffs argued thatNational Grid was basically
blowing a minor inconvenience, aconnectivity glitch up, into a
life-threatening crisis just tojustify a return to office
policy.
SPEAKER_02 (21:59):
And there was evidence of another remote
employee in a similar role thathurt their case too.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
Yes.
They showed that at least oneother employee, a call center
representative, who takes theinitial emergency reports and
creates the work orders for thedispatchers, was allowed to work
from home.
SPEAKER_02 (22:15):
So the person taking the first panicked call is
remote?
SPEAKER_00 (22:17):
But the person who then assigns the truck to that
call has to be in the building.
It creates this inconsistencythat makes you question where
the real essential work ishappening.
SPEAKER_02 (22:28):
So let's talk about how the judge sorted this out.
The judge recognized the safetyissues, but still said it had to
go to a jury.
SPEAKER_00 (22:35):
The judge found that while the public safety concerns
were legitimate, the specificfacts here were different from
the usual cases.
How so?
The judge said the casesnational grid cited, which
involved jobs like bus driverswho have to see traffic lights,
or firefighters who pose aphysical risk.
Those were materiallydistinguishable.
SPEAKER_02 (22:55):
Because a dispatcher isn't a firefighter.
SPEAKER_00 (22:57):
Exactly.
A dispatcher's job iscommunication and information
management.
They direct the response.
They aren't the respondersthemselves.
The accommodation they wereasking for wasn't to waive a
physical task, it was to dotheir desk-based tech-heavy job
from a different desk.
SPEAKER_02 (23:11):
And the two years of successful performance just
destroyed the argument that itwas impossible.
SPEAKER_00 (23:16):
It completely invalidated the idea that
physical presence wasautomatically essential.
So for the ADA and the state lawclaims, the judge said there are
too many conflicting facts here.
A jury has to decide.
SPEAKER_02 (23:29):
But then you have the New York City human rights
law, the NYCHRL, and you saidthat law changes everything.
SPEAKER_00 (23:36):
It dramatically changes the playing field.
SPEAKER_02 (23:37):
Explain how.
How does it shift the burden ofproof?
SPEAKER_00 (23:41):
Okay.
So under the federal ADA and thestate law, the plaintiff has to
first prove they're qualifiedand can do the job with an
accommodation.
Then the employer can try toprove that accommodation causes
an undue hardship.
It's a back and forth.
SPEAKER_02 (23:55):
Burden shifting framework.
SPEAKER_00 (23:56):
Right.
The New York City law justthrows that out.
The NYCHRL is one of the mostprotective civil rights laws in
the country.
It defines disability incrediblybroadly and critically.
It puts the entire burden ofproof on the employer from the
very start.
SPEAKER_02 (24:11):
So National Grid had to prove that the accommodation
wouldn't work or would cause ahardship.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Exactly.
The employee doesn't have thatfirst hurdle.
The employer has to prove theycan't do it.
SPEAKER_02 (24:20):
So even if there were some doubts under the ADA,
the city law gave the plaintiffsthis huge safety net.
SPEAKER_00 (24:26):
A huge one.
National Grid had to prove, withconcrete evidence, that letting
these two men work from home wasunsafe or caused an undue
hardship.
And with two years of highproductivity on the record, that
was nearly impossible to dowithout a trial.
SPEAKER_02 (24:40):
The judge basically said, You haven't provided a
definitive answer, so under thecity law, this is going to a
jury.
SPEAKER_00 (24:46):
Absolutely.
And you have to think nationalgrid's behavior here.
SPEAKER_02 (24:49):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (24:50):
The immediate termination threats, ignoring
the medical documentation, theybasically forfeited any claim
that they had engaged in thatinteractive process in good
faith.
SPEAKER_02 (24:59):
Aaron Powell, which is often what protects a company
from those huge punitive damageawards.
SPEAKER_00 (25:04):
Aaron Powell That lack of good faith plus the
contradiction of granting FMLAwhile denying remote work.
It just creates this narrativeof intentional bad acting.
And that is the story the juryended up hearing.
SPEAKER_02 (25:15):
Aaron Powell So the case goes to trial, and we have
the final verdict sheet datedOctober 25, 2025.
This is the jury's final word oneverything.
SPEAKER_00 (25:22):
Aaron Powell And the findings are just overwhelming.
SPEAKER_02 (25:25):
A complete sweep for the plaintiffs.
SPEAKER_00 (25:26):
A complete sweep.
The jury had to answer specificquestions for each of the three
laws.
And for both Russo and Messiah,they found National Grid failed
to provide a reasonableaccommodation under the ADA,
under the state law, and underthe city law.
SPEAKER_02 (25:41):
But the really critical question was about
undue hardship, wasn't it?
The jury was asked, for eachlaw, did National Grid prove
that letting this person workfrom home would be an undue
hardship?
SPEAKER_00 (25:51):
And their answer was a direct and total rejection of
National Grid's entire publicsafety defense.
A resounding no.
For both men, under all threelaws, the jury explicitly looked
at the arguments, the gasexplosion, the backup
generators, the theoreticalrisks, and said, Nope.
We believe that two years ofsuccessful remote work.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
And now the consequences.
Let's talk about the money,starting with Luciana Russo.
SPEAKER_00 (26:15):
So Russo was awarded $500,000 in back pay.
SPEAKER_02 (26:18):
To compensate for the wages he lost when they cut
him off.
SPEAKER_00 (26:20):
Right.
And for emotional distress, hereceived$60,000.
SPEAKER_02 (26:24):
And then the punitive damages.
The part where the jury says, wethink you acted recklessly and
intentionally.
SPEAKER_00 (26:31):
Yes.
Russo was awarded a massive$1million in punitive damages.
Wow.
Bringing his total to$1,560,000.
That million dollars isn'tcompensation.
It's a penalty.
It's a warning.
SPEAKER_02 (26:47):
And a direct indictment of the company's
behavior.
SPEAKER_00 (26:49):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_02 (26:50):
Okay, now for George Messiah, his back pay was
different because he actuallywent back to work in person in
July 2023.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (26:57):
Right.
So his wage loss period wasshorter.
He was awarded$275,000 in backpay.
SPEAKER_02 (27:03):
But his emotional distress award was higher than
Russo's.
SPEAKER_00 (27:06):
It was$175,000.
And you can speculate that maybethat reflects the severe
physical pain of being forcedback into the office, plus the
anxiety triggers he detailed inhis complaint.
SPEAKER_02 (27:16):
And did he also get that massive punitive award?
SPEAKER_00 (27:18):
He did.
Another$1 million in punitivedamages for a total award of
$1,450,000.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (27:25):
So the combined punitive damages award is two
million dollars.
SPEAKER_00 (27:31):
And juries do not take that lightly.
They reserve that for caseswhere they feel the company
acted with just extraordinaryindifference or malice toward an
employee's rights.
SPEAKER_02 (27:40):
Now the plaintiffs had originally asked for$10
million in punitives, so this isless than that, but it's still a
devastating blow.
SPEAKER_00 (27:46):
Oh, absolutely.
The implication of that$2million award is undeniable.
The jury concluded National Gridwasn't just, you know, mistaken
about the law.
SPEAKER_02 (27:54):
They concluded that management acted with calculated
hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (27:58):
Exactly.
Especially with thosetermination threats and cutting
off sick pay, they punished themfor seeking an accommodation.
SPEAKER_02 (28:04):
This trial feels like it has just redefined
essential function for desk jobsin our post-pandemic world.
SPEAKER_00 (28:10):
It has to.
If a safety critical utilitycompany can't successfully
defend an in-person requirementfor a dispatcher who has a
two-year record of flawlessremote work, then who can?
SPEAKER_02 (28:22):
It sets a whole new standard.
An employer can't just point toan old job description from 2019
and say, see, in-personattendance is essential.
SPEAKER_00 (28:31):
No.
They now have to overcome theemployee's documented history of
success.
If remote work was fine for twoyears and productivity was high,
the burden to prove unduehardship now becomes almost
insurmountable.
SPEAKER_02 (28:45):
The jury's decision basically says, documented
success beats speculative risk.
SPEAKER_00 (28:51):
Every time.
And it's also just this powerfulvalidation of how protective the
New York City human rights lawreally is.
Because it put the whole burdenon national grid, it made it so
much easier for the jury toreject those generalized safety
arguments.
SPEAKER_02 (29:04):
So when we boil it all down, what does this all
mean?
SPEAKER_00 (29:07):
The key lesson from Russo versus National Grid for
any employer is this you cannotrely solely on your own internal
judgment of what a job requires.
And you can't rely on thesevague, speculative claims about
safety or efficiency.
SPEAKER_02 (29:20):
Documentation is king.
SPEAKER_00 (29:21):
Completely.
When an employee has adocumented high performance
while working remotely, theemployer has to provide
explicit, concrete evidence thatcontinuing that accommodation
now causes a specific,quantifiable hardship.
SPEAKER_02 (29:33):
Not a theoretical one.
SPEAKER_00 (29:35):
Not a theoretical one.
And under a law like the NYCHRL,even a powerful appeal to public
safety, like a gas explosion, itjust won't be enough if you
can't prove it in this specificemployee's case.
SPEAKER_02 (29:47):
Aaron Powell And the failure to just talk to them, to
engage in that interactiveprocess, honestly, that's what
opened the door for the punitivedamages.
SPEAKER_00 (29:55):
The jury didn't just find a technical mistake.
That$2 million punitive awardsays they believed National Grid
acted with callous, deliberate,reckless disregard for their
employees' rights.
They punished them for beingdisabled.
SPEAKER_02 (30:09):
Which leaves this important question for you, the
learner, to really think aboutas the professional world keeps
changing.
In a world where productivitywas proven at home for millions
of people for two years, howhigh must the bar be for an
employer to legally declareremote work and undue hardship
for a disabled employee?
SPEAKER_00 (30:26):
And this case suggests that bar is way higher
than many employers, especiallythose who rely on historical
risks, ever thought it was.
The legal landscape hasfundamentally shifted.
Documented remote Remote successis now the ultimate evidence
against an essential functiondefense.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.