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.
