Wells Fargo Employee Gets $22 Million in ADA Work-from-Home Claim

Christopher Billedson’s life changed after he fell from a balcony in 1990. The impact of the accident paralyzed his colon and bladder. Since then, medical and pharmaceutical intervention have been required to replicate the functions performed by those organs. The effects of his treatment require him to have frequent, close access to a restroom. 

For many years as a highly successful employee at Wells Fargo Securities in Los Angeles, he was able to manage his condition in the small office where he worked. After more than two decades at the company, Billedson was transferred to the company’s office in Charlotte, North Carolina. At the time, he was able to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but believed that the trading floor-type environment in Charlotte would not provide him with the restroom access he’d need when employees returned to the office. Accordingly, he requested an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that allowed him to continue doing his job from his residence. 

Wells Fargo assigned an ADA consultant to the case who suggested that Billedson be given a trial period in which he could work from home. The consultant told his managers that if Billedson could not fulfill his job duties remotely, then he could be required to work from the office. While the managers questioned if there would be regulatory compliance issues with the arrangement, a final decision was delayed because Wells Fargo had not yet required employees to come back to the office at that point. 

Over the same period of time, the managers were considering a reduction in their group’s workforce, Though only one managing director was originally slated for dismissal, Billedson’s name was added to the list, ostensibly as a cost-saving measure because of his $2.6 million annual salary. Shortly before Charlotte employees had to return to the office, he was terminated. 

Billedson sued under the ADA and North Carolina law, and the jury in the case found in his favor, awarding him a total of $22.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The decision highlights the need for employers to engage in an interactive process when a worker seeks an ADA accommodation. Despite the presence of a consultant here and some superficial negotiation over the issue, the jurors felt that there was no real effort of the part of Wells Fargo to reach a mutually agreeable solution.  

Moreover, employers should be aware that independent arbiters of fact can often see through explanations designed to put a legitimate spin on unlawful retaliation. Clearly, the managers’ actions in this case did not convince the jury that Billedson’s firing was based purely on economic reasons. 

Should you require an accommodation to work, or if you’ve experienced retaliation from your employer because you tried to exercise your rights under the ADA, Kardell Law Group will review the facts of your case and fight for the relief you deserve.