Opinion ID: 2792880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Telework agreements of other resale buyers

Text: The EEOC did not present just Harris’s own declaration. The EEOC also argued that the fact that Ford allowed other resale buyers to telecommute helped to create a genuine dispute of No. 12-2484 EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. Page 26 material fact. Yes, other resale buyers did not telework in exactly the same manner that Harris initially proposed. They had been approved to telecommute on one to two set days per week. R. 66-21 (Telecommuting Agreements) (Page ID #1361–63); R. 60-22 (Telecommuting Agreement) (Page ID #1173); R. 66-20 (Ford Resp. to Interrogs. at 2–3) (Page ID #1359–60) (“Ford . . . has identified the following GSR buyers within the department where Ms. Harris worked . . . who participated in telecommuting arrangements in 2009: . . . Joan Mansucti (2 days per week in agreement but telecommuted 1 day per week).” (emphasis added)). Karen Jirik from HR characterized the telework agreements of other resale buyers as including a requirement that “an employee with an approved telecommuting arrangement should be prepared to come into the office on telecommute days when the business or management requires it.” R. 60-4 (Jirik Decl. ¶ 7) (Page ID #1048). The gulf between Harris’s request and the telecommuting arrangements of other resale buyers, however, is not so wide or clear as the majority claims it is. The majority’s unsupported assertion to the contrary, there is no evidence in the record that Ford ever explicitly offered Harris a similar teleworking agreement—a set schedule of days plus a commitment to come into the office if necessary. R. 66-10 (Mtg. Notes) (Page ID #1318–24). Gordon did describe the telework agreements of the resale buyers as an example of “under what circumstances he felt telecommuting would work for” a resale buyer. Id. at 6 (Page ID #1323). However, Gordon did so at the end of Ford’s second meeting with Harris. Id. Ford opened that meeting by telling Harris that her telework request had been denied, so it is hard to see how Gordon’s discussion could in any way be construed as an offer for Harris to telecommute in a similar fashion. Id. at 4 (Page ID #1321). Although Jirik claimed that the other resale buyers had agreed to come into the office if necessary, that requirement does not appear in Ford’s telecommuting policy or in the telecommuting agreements of other resale buyers. R. 60-11 (Telecommuting Policy) (Page ID #1102–16); R. 66-21 (Telecommuting Agreements) (Page ID #1361–63); R. 60-22 (Telecommuting Agreement) (Page ID #1173). Even if actually enforced, there is no record evidence indicating that Harris would not have also agreed to come into the office if a work matter required it. And again, Harris did not request to telework four days per week, every week. No. 12-2484 EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. Page 27 Even accepting the differences from Harris’s initial request, the telecommuting arrangements of other resale buyers undercut Ford’s claim that, at any given moment, resale buyers must engage in spur of the moment, face-to-face trouble-shooting in order to perform their jobs effectively. By definition, unexpected problems might arise when a resale buyer is telecommuting, and he or she therefore could not participate in face-to-face, spur-of-the-moment meetings to address those problems. Yet Ford still determined that those resale buyers could effectively perform the teamwork functions of their jobs while being absent from the office one to two days per week. The potential difference in predictability in when Harris would be in the office more clearly implicates scheduled teamwork, like meetings. Again, however, Harris attested that “all internal meetings included the conference call attendance option.” R. 66-3 (Harris Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9) (Page ID #1263) (emphasis added).