The Court did say, as has always been the case with disability discrimination claims as it relates to the employer's duty to accommodate, that accommodating the commute turns on a case-by-case basis. Upon remanding the case back to the lower court, the 2nd Circuit stated:
"On remand, the district court shall consider factors such as the number of employees employed by DOHMH, the number and location of its offices, whether other available positions existed for which Tinkelman showed that she was qualified, whether she could have been shifted to a more convenient office without unduly burdening DOHMH's operations, and the reasonableness of allowing her to work without on-site supervision."Interestingly enough, the Court rejected the plaintiff's suggestion for an accommodation of a special telephone or device for the hearing impaired while she worked in the Manhattan office.
The case is Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene,No. 10-3317-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2011)