And that's catching the attention of attorneys across state lines, including Matthew Dietz, who questioned how the current prevalence of work-from-home adaptations might affect the litigation.

"I'm sure that they didn't have 'huddles' when folks were isolated in their homes," said Matthew Dietz, litigation director of Disability Independence Group in Miami.

Dietz is unaffiliated with the case, but he's handled civil rights litigation surrounding the Americans with Disabilities Act for 25 years. He said the litigation and its timing highlighted the future of telecommuting as an accommodation, post-COVID-19—a shift he described as a "huge issue" across several practice areas.

Employment Discrimination?

As spotted on Law.com Radar, plaintiff Precious Ford filed an employment discrimination complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ford's attorney, Victor Severin Roberts of Barrett & Farahany in Atlanta, did not respond to requests for comment.

Ford alleged in her complaint that supervisors repeatedly denied her requests to work from home due to disabilities yet made the accommodation available to other employees.

"[Ford] suffers from disabilities, of which [State Farm] had actual knowledge," the complaint read. "In particular, [Ford] has suffered from major depression, anxiety, stress, and phobia. Additionally, [State Farm] 'regarded' [Ford] as disabled."

Rather than accommodate Ford's remote-work requests, the complaint alleged supervisors advised that Ford use her available medical leave, granted an extension of company affiliation and allowed her to work a shortened work shift that encompassed a daily team huddle.

According to the complaint, after Ford continued to request work-from-home accommodations and sought to be moved to a vacant position, management denied the requests and ultimately terminated her employment.

"[State Farm] penalized [Ford] throughout this period from the beginning of August 2016 through November 2016, for requesting accommodations and use of hours off for her disabilities," the complaint read. "[State Farm] tracked the hours [Ford] missed and threatened [Ford's] employment should she reach the maximum number of allowed illness benefit hours."

Represented by Darren E. Nadel and Stephen E. Baumann II of Littler Mendelson in Denver, State Farm maintained no wrongdoing in an emailed statement.

"State Farm is aware of the lawsuit but has not yet had a chance to respond," the statement read. "State Farm denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing toward Ms. Ford in her employment with the company, and intends to vigorously defend against Ms. Ford's claims."

But in the complaint, Ford disagreed.

"Although [State Farm] purports to provide a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action, this reason is a pretext for disability discrimination," the complaint read. "[State Farm] treated other employees outside [Ford's] protected class differently. "

Pre-Pandemic v. Post-Pandemic

The litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

"The most difficult part of any case with a person with psychiatric disabilities is to demonstrate that the employee's accommodation is necessary, and she is not too disabled to be qualified for the job," Dietz said. "Assuming she gets over that barrier—which the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] believes that she did—all she needs to demonstrate is how State Farm operated during the pandemic."

The comparison, Dietz said, would demonstrate which elements of Ford's job had been essential, and whether the employee was able to fulfill those essential requirements from home.

"Now, post-COVID, employers will have a more difficult time denying accommodations, because they could look back during COVID to determine what portions of the job required in person attendance, and how remote operations were feasible at the time of the pandemic," Dietz said. "In many office jobs where the employee is not a direct service provider, attendance is not an essential qualification of the job."

Citing emotional distress, Ford's complaint sought a jury trial in hopes of recovering damages for "mental and emotional suffering," lost wages and benefits, as well as prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.