FOLLOW US

In a striking verdict that underscores the evolving legal landscape around disability rights and remote work, a New York federal jury has ordered National Grid USA to pay $3.1 million to two former employees who claimed the company unlawfully denied their requests to continue working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The jury found that the energy giant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as New York State and City Human Rights Laws when it refused to let emergency crew dispatchers Luciano Russo and George Messiha remain on telework schedules to manage their medical conditions.

The decision signals a growing recognition by courts that remote work can be a reasonable accommodation under disability law — especially in post-pandemic workplaces.

Disability, Remote Work, and a Pandemic Flashpoint

According to the complaint filed in 2023, Russo and Messiha had been working remotely since early 2020 when National Grid transitioned dispatchers to hybrid schedules. Both men requested full remote arrangements to manage chronic health issues — including back and hip injuries, diabetes, and anxiety disorders — conditions that made commuting and in-person work difficult.

Initially, the company allowed remote work, but by June 2022, National Grid rescinded those accommodations, insisting that dispatchers needed to be physically present to ensure the safety and efficiency of emergency responses.

Both employees were eventually forced onto sick leave before being cut off from company payments in early 2023 — effectively ending their employment.

Jury Rejects Company’s “Essential Function” Argument

National Grid argued that in-person presence was an essential function of a dispatcher’s job. However, U.S. District Judge Natasha C. Merle denied summary judgment last December, noting that evidence from both sides conflicted enough to warrant a full trial.

After deliberations, the jury concluded that the company’s rationale did not hold up — finding that National Grid failed to demonstrate that accommodating the workers posed any “undue hardship.”

The jury awarded Russo $1.56 million in combined back pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages, while Messiha received $1.55 million on similar grounds.

Broader Implications for Workplace Accommodation

“This verdict is a wake-up call for employers who treat post-pandemic telework as a privilege rather than a potential legal right,” said one employment law expert familiar with ADA litigation.

The case marks a significant precedent amid a wave of lawsuits testing the limits of workplace flexibility in a post-COVID world — especially for workers with documented disabilities who thrived under remote arrangements.