Employee Survival Guide® - Remote Work On Trial: Russo v. National Grid $3.1 Verdict 2025

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!Public safety, disability rights, and remote work collide in a courtroom story with real‑world consequences. We walk through how two veteran gas dispatchers, armed with a two‑year record of high performance from home, challenged a return‑to‑office mandate—and won a sweeping jury verdict that included $2 million in punitive damages.We start with the nuts and bolts: what dispatchers actually do, why their work is safety critical yet desk‑based, and how secure laptops and telephony kept operations running during lockdown. From there, we trace the pivot: accommodations granted, then revoked; medical department approvals clashing with labor threats; and the extraordinary step of cutting off paid sick leave while approving FMLA. The defense centered on public safety, citing catastrophic explosions and onsite backups, but the plaintiffs countered with hard numbers, overtime logs, and a key question: if home connectivity was truly life‑or‑death, why were no safeguards required during two years of remote operations?We unpack the legal thresholds under the ADA and New York State law, then show how the New York City Human Rights Law flips the burden, forcing employers to prove an accommodation won’t work or creates undue hardship. The judge sent the case to a jury, finding genuine disputes over what counts as an essential function for a dispatcher. The verdict? A decisive rejection of the “office presence is essential” defense, substantial back pay and emotional distress awards, and punitive damages signaling reckless disregard for rights. The takeaway is practical and profound: documented remote success now sets the benchmark, and employers must bring specific, quantifiable evidence—not speculative risk—to deny accommodations.If you care about modern workplace law, unionized environments, or how post‑pandemic facts are rewriting “essential functions,” this deep dive offers a clear playbook and cautionary tale. Follow the show, share this episode with a colleague who handles HR or compliance, and leave a review to help others find these conversations. 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. 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.

Hey, it's Mark here, and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more. Okay, let's unpack this. Let's do it. We are diving into a case that just, it perfectly captures this defining legal tension of the post-pandemic workplace. Oh, absolutely. It's this abrupt collision between employers saying everybody back to the office and the established legal rights of employees with disabilities. And this isn't just some internal HR memo gone wrong.

This is about whether a major public utility can legally force employees to commute when those same employees have, you know, proven they can do their safety critical jobs successfully from home. Right. So we're looking at the landmark case of Luciano Russo and George Messiah versus National Grid USA. And what makes this deep dive so potent is that we're not just, you know, relying on news clippings or summaries. We have the whole anatomy of the legal fight. We've got the plaintiff's detailed second amended complaint, which lays out the entire factual story. Then we have the defendant's formal answer, their side of the story. And the court's pivotal order denying summary judgment, which is where the judge lays out why this has to go to a jury.

And finally, the big one. The dramatic, financially devastating jury verdict sheet. The final word. Exactly. Our mission today is, well, it's surgical. We need to understand how a fight over working from home, a setup that was forced on everyone by COVID. Right. How did that mushroom into this huge disability lawsuit?

We're talking federal, state, and city disability laws, the ADA, the NYSHRL. And the big one, the New York City Human Rights Law, the NYCHRL, which is notoriously employee protective. And it's all applied to a desk job at a huge utility company. And here's where it gets really interesting. Yeah, let's get to the bottom line. The jury found for the plaintiffs decisively on everything. They completely rejected National Grid's core defense that being in the office was an essential function for public safety. And the price tag for that loss.

Staggering. Over $3 million combined. And a huge chunk of that with punitive damages. Which means the jury thought the company acted badly. Very badly. This verdict is just a mind. monumental warning shot to any employer trying to define essential functions, now that remote work has a proven track record. Okay, so let's set the scene. The defendant here is National Grid USA.

Right, and we need to be clear. This is not some small startup. This is a massive critical infrastructure provider, a gas utility that serves the entire Northeast. With huge offices right in Brooklyn, New York, we're talking about a company whose whole business is public safety and essential services. Exactly. And the plaintiffs, Russo and Messiah, they weren't just random employees. They were in specialized roles right at the heart of those essential services. They were dispatchers. And this is key. While their jobs are absolutely safety critical, they are fundamentally sedentary. They're based on communication coordination. All done on computers and phones. Understanding what they actually did every day is, I think, vital to understanding the whole case. So let's detail that. Luciano Russo, he'd been with the company a while, got promoted to Distribution Central Dispatcher back in 2013.

And his focus was incredibly high stakes. Oh, yeah. He handled emergency jobs for underground street leaks. We're talking gas mains, service lines. The kind of thing that makes the news if it goes wrong. Exactly. His job was to use specialized computer systems to classify the work, track where the crews were, and coordinate the response with the foreman in the field.

He was the communication hub. The link between the emergency call and the guys on the street fixing, the leak. Right. And then you have George Messiah, also a veteran, the company since 2001. He was a central meter services dispatcher. So a similar role? Similar, but a bit different. He also used computers and phones to assign crews, but he handled a mix of planned jobs and emergencies. Okay. But Messiah had this other layer of responsibility. He was an elected union delegate for the dispatcher group. So he knew the contract inside and out. Intimately. The collective bargaining agreement overtime rules, staffing, all things that would later become really important when we get to the

retaliation claims. Now, the technical side of this, the idea of them working from home wasn't theoretical, was it? Not at all. It was proven by necessity. March 2020 hits, the world shuts down. The COVID lockdown. And New York State issues a mandate. So National Grid sends all of its dispatchers home to work. This becomes the linchpin on the whole case, doesn't it?

It's a massive piece of evidence. I mean, think about it. National Grid, a company that is about to argue that public safety is paramount and requires in-person work, they successfully executed this huge technological pivot. They installed secure laptops, all the software specialized phone hookups, so that every single dispatcher could plug into the office systems from their own homes. And for two full years, the company basically admitted just by its actions that the job could be done remotely. Precisely. And it wasn't just that they could do the job. job, the plaintiff's alleged performance actually got better. Significantly better.

Rousseau's complaint specifically mentions this gain sharing bonus. Which is tied to productivity, right? Directly. And he says that bonus nearly doubled in fiscal year 2020, the first full year they were all remote compared to the year before the pandemic. Now, to be fair, we have to stress this. National Grid, in its formal answer, denied this specific allegation. So they disputed the efficiency increase. They did. But that data point itself, whether it's perfectly accurate or not, it creates a powerful

story for the jury. Of course. Even if the bonus didn't exactly double, the fact that these critical employees were performing well enough to earn big bonuses while at home, it just completely undercuts the later argument that remote work is inherently risky. It suggests things were going pretty well. At the very least, robustly maintained. Okay, so now let's pivot to the personal side of this, why this accommodation wasn't just a convenience but a real necessity for these two men. Let's start with Luciano Russo's disabilities. Yeah, this is, that's a lot. He had a severe back injury from 2005. So this is a long-term thing. A very long-term thing. It left him with chronic pain, three herniated discs, seven bulging discs, spinal stenosis. I mean, that's, just reading

that list is painful. It caused loss of feeling, mobility issues in his back and legs. So just Sitting for a long time was difficult. A commute would be agonized. That wasn't even the whole story. Not even close. Yeah. And this is crucial for the jury's perspective. He also had diabetes, which, you know, was a major COVID risk factor, even in 2022. Right. But most critically, he had this cluster of severe gastronintestinal conditions. Right. We're talking colitis, or redundant colon, severe IBS, and a pelvic floor disorder. And what that practically means is he needed to be near a bathroom. Immediately, constantly, and with guaranteed privacy. 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. For him, it wasn't just manageable pain.

The need for immediate bathroom access directly meant he couldn't commute on a bus or a train. He couldn't work in a typical office where the restroom might be down the hall. Or occupied. Or occupied. He couldn't just leave his critical dispatcher workstation at a moment's notice in a busy office. So working from home where he controlled his environment, had a private bathroom right there. It wasn't a perk.

It was a literal medical necessity. And the company knew this. When they started bringing people back on a hybrid schedule in July 2021, Rousseau asked for an accommodation to stay fully remote, and they gave it to him for a while. And his performance during this time was exemplary. The complaint makes a point of this. He worked 526 hours of overtime in just the first seven months of 2022.

That is a stunning amount of overtime. It's a huge commitment. it tells you the company was relying on him heavily, and that his disability was absolutely not stopping him from doing high-quality, safety-critical work from home. Okay, now let's turn to George Messiah. His physical issues were also really profound. They were. He had severe back pain from a fused hip joint, which was a result of a surgery in 2014 for

an old work injury. Okay. It left him with something called failed back surgery syndrome. It caused a noticeable limp. His right leg was atrophied. Again, commuting, sitting in an office chair for eight, ten hours. it was physically punishing for him. And on top of that physical pain, he was also dealing with significant emotional trauma.

Yes, an anxiety disorder, which was triggered by the loss of his son and his mother. So you have the physical and the mental health components. Right. And disability law covers both. For someone dealing with that level of physical pain and anxiety, the stability and control of a remote work environment can be a critical accommodation. It reduces the stress of a commute of public interaction. And like Rousseau, he also got an accommodation in July 2021 to keep working from home. He did, which established this year-long precedent of successful remote work, even after the main pandemic mandate ended. So just to sum this part out, you have two high-performing long-term employees with thoroughly documented disabilities.

Right. And the accommodation they needed had been working perfectly well for two full years. That's the essential context. That's the stable ground right before the conflict begins. And that stability came to a. screeching halt in mid-2020. It did. By May, June of that year, National Grid basically decided the pandemic was over for everyone, including people with pre-existing non-COV-related medical issues.

They told Russo and Messiah that their remote accommodation was revoked. Time to come back to the office. Report to the main office or an alternate location in Greenpoint. That was the directive. And what was their official reason? It was simple and consistent. The nature of the emergency work the service dispatch department performs. So public safety. In their legal answer, they confirmed the trigger was that the state's COVID lockdown rules were pretty much all gone by early 2022. So in their view, it was time to reset the clock to pre-2020. Exactly. They were trying to act like those two years of successful remote work just never happened. So let's trace this escalation because this is where National Grid's actions start to look legally questionable. And it's

probably why they ended up with those punitive damages. Let's start with Rousseau. Okay, so Rousseau gets the denial letter in June 2022. He does the right thing. He engages with the medical department, specifically a woman named Anne Stevenson, the health services manager. And he talks to her about his complex GI issues. He does. And she acknowledges the need. She asks him for updated medical documents to extend his accommodation until August 15th. So at first, it seems like the interactive process is working. It seems that way, but it collapses and it collapses fast. Yeah?

By August 18th, the whole tone changes from medical concern to a labor confrontation. This is when Roger McKenzie gets involved, the employee and labor relations manager. Right. And he comes in hot. He accuses Russo of disobeying the return to work order since June 7th. And he threatens him with a 10-day suspension and termination if he's not in the office by August 22nd. That's a huge jump from Get Us New Documents to you're fired. It's an immediate escalation to the highest level of discipline.

And Rousseau pushes back, right? He says, wait a minute. The medical department told me it was okay. He points directly to Anne Stevenson, saying she gave him permission to keep working remotely while they sorted out the paperwork. Which is just a classic example of an internal contradiction, isn't it? One department says one thing. And another department is threatening to fire you for doing it. It creates this clear dispute of fact about whether the company was engaging in the process in good faith.

Because a core part of disability law is that good faith engagement. It is. And when labor relations is threatening to fire you based on a deadline that health services seems to have waived, it doesn't look like good faith. The final formal denial comes on September 20th. Yes, from the manager of occupational health programs who just recycles that generic line about the nature of emergency work. No specifics about why Rousseau's remote work was a problem. And then you get this bizarre sequence of events that must have been incredibly confusing. Oh, absolutely. The very next day, September 21st, McKenzie tells him again, return on September 26th, or you are terminated.

But at the same time. At the exact same time, he gets another letter confirming he's been granted FMLA leave family and medical leave act for his severe conditions running all the way through March, 2023. I mean, how does that even work? It's a perfect example of why that jury probably awarded punitive damages. You are acknowledging, on paper, that the employee is medically incapable of working consistently. You're granting him FMLA for up to five absences a month. Exactly. But you are denying the one reasonable accommodation remote work that allows him to work productively while managing that condition.

It seems like they were trying to cover their legal bases on one hand while forcing him out on the other. It certainly looks that way. So Rousseau faced with being fired, he goes out on paid sick leave in late September 2022. And Messiah's story is similar, but he had an even clearer paper trail, didn't he? He did. After the June denial letter, he also followed protocol. He contacted the medical department and was given explicit permission to continue remote work. As long as he kept providing doctor's notes.

Which he did. He followed the rules exactly. And yet, on August 19th, he gets the same threat letter from Roger McKenzie. The exact same one. Falsely asserting that he'd been refusing to return without permission since June. But he had permission. He did. And he provided new Docker's notes that were crystal clear, saying he was more than capable to follow through his duties from home.

Didn't matter. The final denial came on September 20th for him, too. Right. So unable to work remotely and medically unable to return to the office without severe pain, he also took paid sick leave starting September 26th. And this brings us to the retaliation claims, because this is where it gets really ugly. It really does. Right. Both men are using their paid sick leave, which is a right they have under their union. contract. This is how they're avoiding termination while they fight this. But then in January 2023, National Grid stops paying them. They cut them off. They reclassified them as sick no pay.

And the plaintiffs immediately called this what it was. An unprecedented retaliatory denial of sick leave. The argument was simple. National Grid was trying to financially choke them out to coerce them into dropping their requests or face total economic ruin. So this is where the legal claims really solidify. It's not just about accommodation anymore. No, it's about aggressive employer misconduct. The claims basically break down into a few prongs. Okay, lay them out. First, the basic failure to provide reasonable accommodation. That's remote work. Despite two years of proof that it worked. Second, failure to engage in the interactive process in good faith, citing all those mixed messages and threats. Third, failure to prove any credible undue hardship. And the fourth prong, the

Retaliation. Right. Specifically, denying their paid sick leave as punishment for exercising their disability rights. So let's get into National Grid's defense, especially on that sick leave issue. They tried to argue that the court shouldn't even be allowed to hear that part of the case. This is where it gets legally complex, but it's a critical move that companies with unions often try. They raised an affirmative defense called Section 301 preemption of the Labor Management Relations Act. Okay, break that down for us. Section 301 preemption. In similar terms, Section 301 says that if a dispute is about interpreting a collective bargaining agreement, the CBA, the union contract, it has to be handled

through the grievance and arbitration process in that contract. Not in federal court. Not a federal court. So National Grid was saying, hey, this sickleaf policy is part of the union contract to decide if we applied it correctly, you have to interpret the contract. And therefore, federal court, you have no jurisdiction here. That's a pretty clever move. It's a very clever move. If the judge had agreed, the plaintiffs would have lost their retaliation claim in federal court. They would have been forced into the union's internal, maybe slower, maybe less favorable grievance process. And it would have disconnected the money issue from the disability discrimination claims. Exactly. It was an attempt to sideline one of the most powerful pieces of evidence against them that they were trying to starve these guys into submission. So National Grid denied everything, said they acted in good faith, and then tried the sophisticated, legal maneuver to get the money claim thrown out. Right. But ultimately, the judge had to decide if there was enough evidence to even have a jury trial

on the main issue, the accommodation itself. And that leads us to the summary judgment phase. Right. So before a trial, both sides file these motions for summary judgment. It's basically asking the judge, the evidence is so clear in our favor, just end the case now, no jury needed. And the judge's order from December 2024 denying those motions. You said this is maybe the most instructive document we have?

I think so, because it lays out precisely why this case had to go to a jury. The court said there were too many genuine disputes of material fact. And those disputes, they all centered on one specific legal question, didn't they? Almost entirely. Look, for an ADA discrimination claim, the plaintiff has to prove three things. One, you have a disability. Two, the employer knew about it. Okay.

And three, you can perform the essential functions the job with a reasonable accommodation. And National Grid wasn't really fighting the first two points. No. For the purposes of this motion, they conceded them. The entire battle was over that third point, was in-person attendance, an essential function of being a dispatcher. Let's take a quick break.

It's Mark Kim. We have a new product for you. It's called the Employee Survival Guide or Employees Survival.com. And it's a site that you can obtain PDF products that I've created myself. It's spending too many hours, way too many, researching and writing about, for example, the performance improvement plan or beating them. And the second one about negotiating severance negotiation agreements to the most important topics that we see in terms of the web traffic and podcast traffic we have. So check out Employeeservival.com and see if this can try to help you and you don't need an attorney to use it. Thank you.

And let's define that term essential function. What does the law mean by that? It means a fundamental job duty, something the employee must be able to do. If you can't do an essential function, you're not qualified for the job, and the employer doesn't have to accommodate you. As opposed to a marginal function, which is less important. Right, something that can be shifted around. So if remote work meant they couldn't do an essential function, National Grid wins. If it only affected a marginal function, the plaintiffs win.

And National Grid's argument here was powerful because it was all about public safety. Absolutely. They said, and I'm quoting here, in-person presence in the NYC dispatching center is essential to the safe and efficient performance of the emergency response duties of dispatcher. And they argued that their judgment on this, it should be given special weight. Considerable deference was the term. The idea is, we're the public utility. we know how to keep people saved from gas leaks, the court shouldn't second-guess us on this. It's a very compelling argument on its face.

And they didn't just talk about general risk. They brought up a specific, terrifying event from the past. They did. They cited the 2014 East Harlem gas explosion, and their argument was that with gas emergencies, mere seconds of delay can have fatal consequences. Now, they had to admit that explosion wasn't caused by a remote worker. Right. But they used it as this powerful, emotional example of the stakes. They were painting a picture that a delay caused by a home internet outage wasn't just an inconvenience.

It was potentially fatal. That remote work was gambling with lives. And they had specific technical arguments, too, about the building itself. Yeah. They pointed out that only the physical dispatching center had backup systems, like a massive surge generator that could restore power in 10 or 15 seconds. A failsafe you just don't have at home. They also tried to discredit the two years of successful remote work. They did.

They claimed that for, For dispatchers generally, the pandemic led to some connectivity issues and more disciplinary problems. They were trying to frame that whole period as a risky one-off experiment, not a proven new way of working. I mean, that sounds like a really strong case for National Grid. They're stating fatal explosions, backup generators. How did the plaintiffs even begin to push back against that? They push back by using the company's own past actions against them. It was brilliant.

First, they just pointed to the undeniable facts. Their own stellar performance, the huge amount of overtime they worked. The productivity bonus that allegedly doubled. Right. Their point was, if the job is essential and we performed it flawlessly from home for two years, how can the location be essential? That's the core conflict right there. The employer defines the job, but the employee's performance record defines what's possible. Exactly. And then they went after the credibility of the safety claims. They argued that if connectivity was truly a life or death issue. If the lack of a home backup generator really put the public at risk.

Then why didn't National Grid mandate any safeguard during the two years everyone was remote? That's a great point. If it was that risky, they would have required backup internet or backup power supplies. Or at least a hardwired Ethernet connection. But they didn't. So the plaintiffs argued that National Grid was basically blowing a minor inconvenience, a connectivity glitch up into a life-threatening crisis just to justify a return to office policy. And there was evidence of another remote employee in a similar role that hurt their case, too. Yes. They show that at least one other employee, a call center representative, who takes the initial emergency reports and creates the work orders for the dispatchers, was allowed to work from home. So the person taking the first panicked call is remote? But the person who then assigns the truck to that call has to be in the building. It creates this inconsistency that makes you question where the real essential work is happening. So let's talk about how the judge sorted this out.

The judge recognized the safety issues, but still said it had to go to a jury. The judge found that while the public safety concerns were legitimate, the specific facts here were different from the usual cases. How so? The judge said the cases national grid cited, which involved jobs like bus drivers who have to see traffic lights or firefighters who pose a physical risk. Those were materially distinguishable. Because a dispatcher isn't a firefighter. Exactly. A dispatcher's job is communication and information management. They direct the response. They aren't the responders themselves. The combination they were asking for wasn't to waive a physical task. It was to do their desk-based tech-heavy job from a different desk. And the two years of successful performance just destroyed the argument that it was impossible.

It completely invalidated the idea that physical presence was automatically essential. So for the ADA and the state law claims, the judge said, there are too many conflicting facts here. A jury has to decide. But then you have the New York City human rights law, the NYCHRL, and you said that law changes everything. It dramatically changes the playing field. Explain how. How does it shift the burden of proof? Okay.

So under the federal ADA and the state law, the plaintiff has to. to first prove they're qualified and can do the job with an accommodation. Then the employer can try to prove that accommodation causes an undue hardship. It's a back and forth. A burden shifting framework. Right. The New York City law just throws that out. The NYCHRL is one of the most protective civil rights laws in the country. It defines disability incredibly broadly and critically.

It puts the entire burden of proof on the employer from the very start. So National Grid had to prove that the accommodation wouldn't work or would cause a hardship. Exactly. The employee doesn't have that first hurdle. The employer has to prove they can't do it. So even if there were some doubts under the ADA, the city law gave the plaintiffs this huge safety net. A huge one. National Grid had to prove, with concrete evidence, that letting these two men work from home was unsafe or caused an undue hardship. And with two years of high productivity on the record, that was nearly impossible to do without a trial. The judge basically said, you haven't provided a definitive answer. So under the city law, this is going to. to a jury. Absolutely. And you have to think, National Grid's behavior here. Yeah. The immediate

termination threats, ignoring the medical documentation, they basically forfeited any claim that they had engaged in that interactive process in good faith. Which is often what protects a company from those huge punitive damage awards. That lack of good faith, plus the contradiction of granting FMLA while denying remote work, it just creates this narrative of intentional bad acting. And that is the story of the jury ended up hearing. So the case goes to trial, and we have the final verdict sheet dated October 25, 2025. This is the jury's final word on everything. And the findings are just overwhelming. A complete sweep for the plaintiffs. A complete sweep. The jury had to answer specific questions for each of the three laws. And for both Russo and Messiah, they found National

Grid failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, under the state law, and under the city law. But the really critical question was about undue hardship, wasn't it? The jury was asked, for each law, did National Grid prove that letting this person work from home would be an undue hardship? And their answer was a direct and total rejection of National Grid's entire public safety defense. A resounding no. For both men, under all three laws, the jury explicitly looked at the arguments, the gas explosion, the backup generators, the theoretical risks, and said, nope, we believe the two years of successful remote work. And now the consequences. Let's talk about the money, starting with Luciano Russo.

So Russo was awarded $500,000 in back pay. To compensate for the wages he lost when they cut him off. Right. And for emotional distress, he received $60,000. And then the punitive damages. The part where the jury says, we think you acted recklessly and intentionally. Yes. Russo was awarded a massive $1 million in punitive damages. Wow. bringing his total to $1,560,000. That million dollars isn't compensation.

It's a penalty. It's a warning. And a direct indictment of the company's behavior. Absolutely. Okay, now for George Messiah, his back pay was different because he actually went back to work in person in July 2023. Right. So his wage loss period was shorter. He was awarded $275,000 in back pay.

But his emotional distress award was higher than Rousseau's. It was. 175,000. And you could speculate that maybe that reflects the severe physical pain of being forced back into the office, plus the anxiety triggers he detailed in his complaint. And did he also get that massive punitive award? He did. Another $1 million in punitive damages. For a total award of $1,450,000. So the combined punitive damages award is $2 million. $2 million. And juries do not take that lightly. They reserve that for cases where they feel the company acted with just extraordinary indifference or malice toward an employee's rights. Now, the plaintiffs had originally asked for 10 million impunitives, so this is less than that, but it's still a devastating blow.

Oh, absolutely. The implication of that $2 million award is undeniable. The jury concluded National Grid wasn't just, you know, mistaken about the law. They concluded that management acted with calculated hostility. Exactly. Especially with those termination threats and cutting off sick pay, they punished them. for seeking an accommodation. This trial feels like it has just redefined essential function for desk jobs in our post-pandemic world. It has to. If a safety critical utility company can't successfully defend an in-person requirement

for a dispatcher who has a two-year record of flawless remote work, then who can. It sets a whole new standard. An employer can't just point to an old job description from 2019 and say, see, in-person attendance is essential. No. They now have to. overcome the employee's documented history of success. If remote work was fine for two years and productivity was high, the burden to prove undue hardship now becomes almost insurmountable.

The jury's decision basically says, documented success beats speculative risk. Every time. And it's also just this powerful validation of how protective the New York City human rights law really is. Because it put the whole burden on national grid, it made it so much easier for the jury to reject those generalize safety arguments. So when we boil it all down, what does this all mean? The key lesson from Rousseau versus National Grid for any employer is this. You cannot rely solely on your own internal judgment of what a job requires. And you can't rely on these vague speculative claims about safety or efficiency.

Documentation is king. Completely. When an employee has a documented history of high performance while working remotely, the employer has to provide explicit, concrete evidence that continuing that accommodation now causes a specific quantifiable hardship. Not a theoretical one. Not a theoretical one. And under a law like the NYCHRL,

even a powerful appeal to public safety, like a gas explosion, it just won't be enough if you can't prove it in this specific employee's case. And the failure to just talk to them, to engage in that interactive process, honestly, that's what opened the door

for the punitive damages. The jury didn't just find a technical mistake. That $2 million punitive award says they believed National Grid acted with callous, deliberate, reckless disregard for their employee's rights. They punish them for being disabled. Which leaves this important question for you, the learner, to really think about as the professional world keeps changing.

In a world where productivity was proven at home for millions of people for two years, how high must the bar be for an employer to legally declare remote work and undo hardship for a disabled employee? In this case suggests that bar is way higher than many employers, especially those who rely on historical risks ever thought it was. The legal landscape has fundamentally shifted. Documented remote success is now the ultimate evidence against an essential function defense. If you like the Employees Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can

actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because, anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to m-C-A-R-U-I at C-A-P-C-Law.com. That's capclaw.com.