Reported / Citable
Background
Menat Salem, a former BASF Senior Project Engineer, sued BASF under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. Salem had multiple sclerosis and was later diagnosed with breast cancer. After taking leave for cancer treatment, she sought to return in March 2023 with a temporary work-from-home restriction.
BASF declined to accommodate the requested remote-work restriction and placed Salem on disability leave. Salem’s later physician statements progressively extended her anticipated return-to-work date. BASF ended her employment in May 2025 after 24 consecutive months of long-term disability, consistent with its plan. BASF moved for summary judgment after discovery closed.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison granted BASF summary judgment on both claims because Salem did not establish that she was a qualified individual under the ADA. Both ADA discrimination and accommodation claims required her to show that, with or without a reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of her position.
Salem conceded that her Senior Project Engineer role required at least some in-person attendance. Even assuming that attendance could be as little as one day per year, the court found no evidence that Salem could meet it. Her physician records never released her to work on site after April 17, 2023, and her own testimony that she could make necessary site visits could not substitute for supporting evidence. The court therefore did not reach BASF’s other arguments concerning damages after total disability or administrative exhaustion of the termination claim.
Key Takeaways
- An ADA plaintiff must show she can perform every essential job function with a reasonable accommodation.
- Where a job requires some in-person presence, an employee’s unsupported assertion that she could attend as needed may not establish qualification.
- A court may resolve both discrimination and accommodation claims on the qualified-individual element without reaching other defenses.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that remote work is not necessarily a reasonable ADA accommodation when the position undisputedly requires even minimal on-site attendance. The relevant question was not how frequently Salem needed to appear in person, but whether admissible evidence showed she could do so.
For employers and litigants, the case highlights the importance of contemporaneous medical restrictions and return-to-work documentation when evaluating whether an employee remains qualified for a position.