National Grid defeats worker’s retaliation claim over last-minute accommodation bid

Two days later, National Grid’s HR director sent Harris a letter telling him he had violated company policy by working out of state without authorization. The letter gave him a choice: come back immediately or be treated as having resigned. It also floated the option of a severance package.

Harris responded the same day, saying he was not resigning and wanted to work out of state temporarily. It was in that same response – and only after receiving the ultimatum – that he first mentioned having preexisting health conditions that put him at higher risk during the pandemic and asked for a reasonable accommodation to work off-site. He never claimed he was unable to return to his territory and work remotely from there.

National Grid did not immediately pull the trigger. The company’s medical team gave Harris clear instructions on what documentation he needed to submit and set a deadline of August 18. Harris also briefly filed for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, then withdrew the request. He submitted a short note from his doctor saying he would benefit from working remotely during the pandemic, but the letter did not explain why he needed to be in Ohio or California rather than at home in Massachusetts. National Grid told him the documentation fell short and asked for more detail. Harris did not provide it. The company terminated him on August 19.

Harris sued, claiming he was fired in retaliation for seeking a disability accommodation and exercising his rights under the FMLA. He did not argue that National Grid had failed to accommodate a disability – only that requesting one cost him his job.

The court was unconvinced. The timeline, in its view, told the whole story. National Grid had already decided to terminate Harris if he refused to return to his territory before it ever learned he intended to seek an accommodation or file for FMLA leave. The company issued its ultimatum on July 30, and Harris raised his medical concerns only in response to that ultimatum. The court pointed to longstanding precedent establishing that retaliation claims cannot rest on protected activity that happened after the employer had already set its course.