[blindlaw] Reduced Billable Hour Requirement as an ADA accommodation

[rodalcidonis at gmail.com]

That would be extremely misguided in my view. Reduction in essential work 
responsibilities should never be a basis for a request for reasonable 
accommodation. I wouldn't do it even if it were legally permissible.

If you are asking for a billable hour reduction now, what will you next ask 
to have reduced? This is unfair to everyone else. These are the things your 
potential employer will be thinking about.




Rod Alcidonis, Esq.
-----Original Message----- 
From: James Fetter via BlindLaw
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:19 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List
Cc: James Fetter
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Reduced Billable Hour Requirement as an ADA 
accommodation

Michal,
I would have to look into the cases concerning law firms or similar 
businesses with billable hour requirements. I don’t see why the logic of ADA 
cases and regs, which do require employers to be open to a certain amount of 
rearrangement of job functions, would not apply to billable hour 
requirements. So on paper, there might be a case to be made here. Of course, 
the firm would argue that meeting the billable hour requirement was an 
essential job function, and I don’t see too many federal judges, especially 
those coming out of big law, disagreeing.
Regardless, I would be extremely hesitant to try to make that case. Far too 
many firms are already skittish about hiring us, either because their 
document management systems are inaccessible or because of ableist 
assumptions about our productivity. Requesting a reduction in billable hours 
would raise a huge red flag. The harsh reality is that most of us will 
simply have to work harder, and potentially put in longer hours, than our 
sighted peers to get, and keep, good legal jobs.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Michal Nowicki via BlindLaw 
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> During last week’s conference call on job interview tips for blind 
> attorneys, I brought up the subject of meeting billable hour requirements 
> as a blind attorney. I now have a follow-up question on that topic. Given 
> the fact that we often need more time to complete some tasks than our 
> sighted colleagues due to access barriers, assistive technology 
> limitations, etc., and that it would be unethical to bill clients for this 
> extra time, does requesting a reasonable reduction in the annual billable 
> hour requirement (e.g., from 2,000 to 1,800 hours) qualify as a reasonable 
> accommodation under the ADA and/or similar disability rights laws? Is 
> there any on-point authority? Any guidance on this issue would be greatly 
> appreciated, as I want to do transactional work, most of which is still 
> done on a billable hour basis.
>
> Best,
>
> Michal
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rodalcidonis%40gmail.com