ARTICLE
10 November 2023

Arizona District Court Finds Denial Of Temporary Telework Not An Adverse Employment Action

PC
Perkins Coie LLP

Contributor

Perkins Coie LLP logo

Perkins Coie is a premier international law firm with over a century of experience, dedicated to addressing the legal and business challenges of tomorrow. Renowned for its deep industry knowledge and client-centric approach, the firm has consistently partnered with trailblazing organizations, from aviation pioneers to artificial intelligence innovators. With 21 offices across the United States, Asia, and Europe, and a global network of partner firms, Perkins Coie provides seamless support to clients wherever they operate.

The firm's vision is to be the trusted advisor to the world’s most innovative companies, delivering strategic, high-value solutions critical to their success. Guided by a one-firm culture, Perkins Coie emphasizes excellence, collaboration, inclusion, innovation, and creativity. The firm is committed to building diverse teams, promoting equal access to justice, and upholding the rule of law, reflecting its core values and enduring dedication to clients, communities, and colleagues.

Recently, in Matthews v. City of Tempe, 2023 WL 6880652, the Arizona Federal District Court considered whether an employer discriminated against a former employee when it denied...
United States Arizona Employment and HR

Recently, in Matthews v. City of Tempe, 2023 WL 6880652, the Arizona Federal District Court considered whether an employer discriminated against a former employee when it denied him an opportunity to telecommute on certain days but allowed female employees to take advantage of remote work.

In December 2020, the city of Tempe instituted a policy that allowed employees to telecommute for the first week after returning to work from Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) leave. When this policy was implemented, the plaintiff employee had already used all his FFCRA leave, and thus, the policy was not offered to him. This resulted in the employee losing out on, at most, five days of remote work. Because the policy was offered to two female employees, the plaintiff filed an internal complaint alleging that his coworkers' requests were granted because they were female, and his request was denied because he was not.

To support his allegations of discriminatory treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the employee argued that the denial of his request to telework was an adverse employment action against him. In rejecting this argument, the district court looked outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which has not directly ruled on whether loss of teleworking options is considered an adverse employment decision under McDonnell Douglas—and found that the Ninth Circuit's view of what constitutes an adverse employment action aligns with cases from other circuits, holding that the denial of temporary remote work requests did not constitute an adverse action. Noting that the employee's assigned duties and compensation would not have changed, the district court held that "[t]he loss of at most five days of remote work options is far too short to constitute a significant change in employment status."

Arizona employers facing employee requests related to remote work should consult experienced counsel for guidance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More