Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Abby M. Warren represents employers in labor and employment matters. She focuses her practice on counseling private sector employers, including multinational corporations, health care organizations, educational institutions, and manufacturers, in all areas of employment law. Abby also defends employers in federal and state court and before administrative agencies. In addition to counseling and litigation, she provides workplace training for clients and conducts workplace investigations. She is a member of our firm's Labor, Employment, Benefits, Immigration + Tax group.

Employment Counseling, Compliance, + Training

Abby counsels employers and human resource professionals in all areas of employment law, including discharge and discrimination issues, workplace investigations, affirmative action compliance, employee discipline, wage and hour issues, disability and reasonable accommodation, family and medical leave, unemployment, employment and independent contractor agreements, severance and separation agreements, individual terminations and reductions in force, and workplace health and safety issues. She also negotiates and drafts employment and separation agreements on behalf of clients, in addition to reviewing and revising employee handbooks and personnel policies. She also conducts training sessions on a myriad of employment issues, including topics such as sexual harassment, workplace civility, and avoiding discrimination claims.

Employment Litigation + Administrative Advocacy

Abby regularly defends employers in discrimination, leave, harassment, and a wide range of labor and employment matters. She represents clients in matters from inception to trial and through appeal in federal and state courts.

She represents clients in administrative agency matters before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of Federal Contract and Compliance Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Abby represents clients at private and public arbitration hearings and in alternative dispute resolution and mediation sessions with federal, state, and private mediators.

Workplace Investigations

As an Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate Holder, Abby is a trained workplace investigator, and she regularly conducts, manages, and provides advice regarding workplace investigations involving all types of employment-related issues, including sexual harassment, ethics, interpersonal conflicts, and workplace misconduct.

Labor Relations + Union Avoidance

Abby represents employers in matters before the National Labor Relations Board, such as unfair labor practice charges and representation petitions. She has provided training on labor issues to supervisors and provided advice and strategy related to union avoidance. She also represents employers in arbitrations arising from collective bargaining agreements.

Pro Bono

Abby performs pro bono work on behalf of Connecticut non-profit organizations through the Pro Bono Partnership. She serves as a trusted advisor to non-profit organizations with labor and employment issues, including assisting with wage and hour matters, executive transitions, and handbook and policy development.

She regularly writes and presents on employment and labor-related matters, often focusing on the impact of key court decisions and compliance issues. Abby has been a contributing editor to The Developing Labor Law for several years and is an active author for our firm's Manufacturing Law Blog. Prior to entering private practice, she served as a clerk in the New Haven Superior Court to judges in both the civil and criminal divisions.

  • Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law (Juris Doctor, cum laude)
    • Woolsack Honor Society
  • Southern Connecticut State University  (Bachelors, summa cum laude)
    • B.S., International Business Management

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New Jersey
  • State of New York
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
  • Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court

Selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Employment Law - Management since 2021

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2022 to 2025

Named a Connecticut Law Tribune 2019 "New Leader in the Law"

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2017 to 2020

Millennial Move Maker 2015 Award presented by the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce

Robinson+Cole Mentor of the Year, 2022

Hartford Business Journal, 2023 "Forty Under 40" Honoree  

American Bar Association

American Bar Foundation
Fellow

Connecticut Bar Association

Connecticut Bar Foundation
James W. Cooper Fellow

Human Resource Association of Central Connecticut

Society for Human Resource Management

Association of Workplace Investigators
Certificate Holder

Connecticut Judicial Branch
Member, State Bar Examining Committee (2019 - present)

Connecticut Women's Council
Member (2020 - present)

Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce
Past Chairperson, Human Resources Steering Committee

Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame
Board of Trustees
Co-chair, Nominating and Governance Committee

Experience


Wage + Hour Compliance Issue

Assisted national company in wage and hour compliance issue involving payroll deductions including creating a nationwide program and strategy.

Workplace Complaints

Supervised investigation of a number of workplace complaints received by a company regarding finance, discrimination, harassment, and other issues.

Constitutional Claims Against Municipality

Secured dismissal of two separate actions alleging Constitutional claims against a municipality.



Publications


Coming Soon: Significant Employment Law Changes for Connecticut Employers teaser
June 17, 2026

Coming Soon: Significant Employment Law Changes for Connecticut Employers

New York State and New York City Labor and Employment Law Updates teaser
February 4, 2026

New York State and New York City Labor and Employment Law Updates

January 29, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Industry Today

Labor + Employment group lawyers Abby M. Warren and Christopher A. Costain highlighted five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

Coming Soon: Significant Employment Law Changes for Connecticut Employers teaser
June 17, 2026

Coming Soon: Significant Employment Law Changes for Connecticut Employers

New York State and New York City Labor and Employment Law Updates teaser
February 4, 2026

New York State and New York City Labor and Employment Law Updates

January 29, 2026

2026 Labor and Employment Outlook for Manufacturers

Industry Today

Labor + Employment group lawyers Abby M. Warren and Christopher A. Costain highlighted five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

Legal Update: Massachusetts and Rhode Island Labor and Employment Law Updates teaser
January 29, 2026

Legal Update: Massachusetts and Rhode Island Labor and Employment Law Updates

Legal Update: Ready for Change? 2025 Labor and Employment Law Updates for Connecticut Unpacked teaser
December 11, 2025

Legal Update: Ready for Change? 2025 Labor and Employment Law Updates for Connecticut Unpacked

November 6, 2025

How Wearable Technology Creates Legal Risks for Manufacturers

Maufacturing.net

Abby and Chris focus on the legal risks manufacturers may face by requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work. Wearable technologies are “smart devices” such as helmets, vests or ergonomic sensors that collect and transmit information, and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions. These technologies raise various privacy, surveillance and security concerns relating to the collection, monitoring and storage of employee biometric information. Read the article.

Legal Update: DOL Proposes to Expand Availability of Companionship and Live-In Domestic Service FLSA Exemptions teaser
July 10, 2025

Legal Update: DOL Proposes to Expand Availability of Companionship and Live-In Domestic Service FLSA Exemptions

Legal Update: Recent Executive Orders: What Employers Need to Know to Assess the Shifting Sands teaser
February 18, 2025

Legal Update: Recent Executive Orders: What Employers Need to Know to Assess the Shifting Sands

January 31, 2025

Federal Labor & Employment Trends Likely Coming in 2025

Industry Today

As the new administration gets underway, Abby and Chris acknowledge that manufacturers may be impacted by a number of significant changes to the federal labor and employment law landscape in 2025 and in the years ahead. To ensure they remain in compliance, manufacturers may want to follow developments in areas including EEO-1 reporting requirements, labor law, worker classification, among other changes. Read the article.



Legal Update: Massachusetts and Rhode Island Labor and Employment Law Updates teaser
January 29, 2026

Legal Update: Massachusetts and Rhode Island Labor and Employment Law Updates

Legal Update: Ready for Change? 2025 Labor and Employment Law Updates for Connecticut Unpacked teaser
December 11, 2025

Legal Update: Ready for Change? 2025 Labor and Employment Law Updates for Connecticut Unpacked

November 6, 2025

How Wearable Technology Creates Legal Risks for Manufacturers

Maufacturing.net

Abby and Chris focus on the legal risks manufacturers may face by requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work. Wearable technologies are “smart devices” such as helmets, vests or ergonomic sensors that collect and transmit information, and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions. These technologies raise various privacy, surveillance and security concerns relating to the collection, monitoring and storage of employee biometric information. Read the article.

Legal Update: DOL Proposes to Expand Availability of Companionship and Live-In Domestic Service FLSA Exemptions teaser
July 10, 2025

Legal Update: DOL Proposes to Expand Availability of Companionship and Live-In Domestic Service FLSA Exemptions

Legal Update: Recent Executive Orders: What Employers Need to Know to Assess the Shifting Sands teaser
February 18, 2025

Legal Update: Recent Executive Orders: What Employers Need to Know to Assess the Shifting Sands

January 31, 2025

Federal Labor & Employment Trends Likely Coming in 2025

Industry Today

As the new administration gets underway, Abby and Chris acknowledge that manufacturers may be impacted by a number of significant changes to the federal labor and employment law landscape in 2025 and in the years ahead. To ensure they remain in compliance, manufacturers may want to follow developments in areas including EEO-1 reporting requirements, labor law, worker classification, among other changes. Read the article.


Events


Past

Five Hot Topics in Employment Law

Jun 30 2026
Human Resource Association of Central Connecticut’s (HRACC) Live Webinar
Past

A State & Federal Legislative Update for Employers

Jun 16 2026
OneDigital’s Compliance & Coffee Seminar Series
Past

Five Hot Topics in Employment Law

Jun 30 2026
Human Resource Association of Central Connecticut’s (HRACC) Live Webinar
Past

A State & Federal Legislative Update for Employers

Jun 16 2026
OneDigital’s Compliance & Coffee Seminar Series
Past

A State & Federal Legislative Update for CT Employers

Apr 28 2026
OneDigital’s Compliance & Coffee Seminar Series
Past

The Show Must Go On: HR’s High-Wire Act When Leadership Implodes

Apr 22 2026
2026 Tri-State SHRM Conference: HR Under the Big Top
Past

Policy and Compliance Update

Mar 26 2026
Women in Manufacturing (WiM) HR Roundtable
Past

Legal Brief

Mar 19 2026
“Benefits Madness,” hosted by MP: Hired for HR and SFP Wealth
Past

A State & Federal Legislative Update for CT Employers

Apr 28 2026
OneDigital’s Compliance & Coffee Seminar Series
Past

The Show Must Go On: HR’s High-Wire Act When Leadership Implodes

Apr 22 2026
2026 Tri-State SHRM Conference: HR Under the Big Top
Past

Policy and Compliance Update

Mar 26 2026
Women in Manufacturing (WiM) HR Roundtable
Past

Legal Brief

Mar 19 2026
“Benefits Madness,” hosted by MP: Hired for HR and SFP Wealth

News


February 3, 2026

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Signal AI and Non-Compete Agreements Should Be On Manufacturers’ Radar in 2026

In their article for Industry Today published on January 29, 2026, Abby and Chris highlight five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

Industry Today
December 1, 2025

Robinson+Cole Advances Innovation as First Am Law 200 Firm to Partner with Newcode.ai in United States

Firm showcases innovative agentic AI solution in firmwide program with Newcode.ai CEO Maged Helmy
Robinson+Cole Advances Innovation as First Am Law 200 Firm to Partner with Newcode.ai in United States teaser
November 13, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Examine Potential Implications of Wearable Technology

Maufacturing.net
February 3, 2026

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Signal AI and Non-Compete Agreements Should Be On Manufacturers’ Radar in 2026

In their article for Industry Today published on January 29, 2026, Abby and Chris highlight five significant labor and employment law related trends for 2026, including generative artificial intelligence and non-compete agreements. The authors suggest that as non-compete statutes “…continue to expand at the state level, manufacturers should review their non-compete agreements and avoid using broad restrictions, instead developing and implementing narrowly tailored provisions that protect a specific, articulable business interest and are compliant with applicable state law.” Read the article.

Industry Today
December 1, 2025

Robinson+Cole Advances Innovation as First Am Law 200 Firm to Partner with Newcode.ai in United States

Firm showcases innovative agentic AI solution in firmwide program with Newcode.ai CEO Maged Helmy
Robinson+Cole Advances Innovation as First Am Law 200 Firm to Partner with Newcode.ai in United States teaser
November 13, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Examine Potential Implications of Wearable Technology

Maufacturing.net
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
February 6, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Co-Author Article on Federal Labor & Employment Trends in 2025

Industry Today
November 4, 2024

Abby Warren and Jessica Pinto Co-Author Article on New DOL Rule Impacting Restaurant Industry

Modern Restaurant Management
October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
September 12, 2024

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Co-Author Article for Nation’s Restaurant News on Spread of Cyberbullying in the Restaurant Industry


November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
February 6, 2025

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Co-Author Article on Federal Labor & Employment Trends in 2025

Industry Today
November 4, 2024

Abby Warren and Jessica Pinto Co-Author Article on New DOL Rule Impacting Restaurant Industry

Modern Restaurant Management
October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
September 12, 2024

Abby Warren and Christopher Costain Co-Author Article for Nation’s Restaurant News on Spread of Cyberbullying in the Restaurant Industry


Manufacturing Law Blog


Below is an excerpt of Manufacturing Law Blog posts authored by Abby.

Using AI in Recruiting, Hiring or Other Employment Decisions? Beware of Connecticut’s New Law

This article was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer, Christopher Costain. On May 29, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law comprehensive online safety legislation with significant impacts for employers, which takes effect on October 1, 2026. The law follows in the footsteps of similar legislation enacted recently around the country which creates various new compliance obligations for employers leveraging artificial intelligence tools to assist in making employment-related decisions. Employers seeking to harness the power of these new and emerging technologies should ensure compliance with this new framework. Automated Employment-Related Decision Technology The law restricts an employer’s ability to use “automated employment-related decision technology” (AEDT) to help make employment-related decisions; this is defined as any technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate an output, prediction, ranking, recommendation, or scoring that is a substantial factor used to make or materially influence an employment-related decision, carving out common software that does not do so, such as word processing systems, spreadsheets, or other data that is purely descriptive, diagnostic, or statistical in nature. Under the law, “employment-related decision” means any decision made based on an individual’s personal data to hire, promote, discipline, or discharge such individual, or affect such individual’s terms and conditions of employment, but does not include decisions made with respect to workplace health and safety, scheduling and planning, or productivity.  Disclosure Obligations Beginning October 1, 2027, employers must inform any employee or applicant in plain language when they are interacting with an AEDT to the extent that such interaction would not be obvious to a reasonable person. The law also requires that employers using AEDT to generate an output for the purpose of making, or to use as a substantial factor in making an employment-related decision, must provide to the employee or applicant a written notice disclosing: That the employer is using an AEDT; The purpose of the AEDT and the nature of the employment-related decision; The trade name of the AEDT; The categories of personal data concerning such employee or applicant that will be analyzed by the AEDT, including how such data will be processed to reach a determination; The sources of the personal data used; and The employer’s contact information. The law does not specify when an employer’s disclosure obligations are triggered within the employment-related decision-making process, as opposed to in connection with “interactions” with an employee or applicant. However, forthcoming implementing regulations may distinguish between these situations so that employers can recognize when and which disclosure obligations are triggered. The law does not require the disclosure of trade secrets or information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by law; however, to the extent information is withheld on such basis, notice must be provided to the person from whom such information is withheld disclosing the fact that information was withheld and the basis for doing so. If AEDT developers have the information above, they must provide that information to the employer so the employer can fulfill its disclosure obligations. Interestingly, the law specifically permits employers to enter into contracts with developers of AEDT to assume the employer’s disclosure obligations under the law, so long as the contract specifically identifies which of the employer’s disclosure obligations the developer is agreeing to assume. Amendments to Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act The law amends the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act effective October 1, 2026, to provide that the use of an AEDT is not a defense to a complaint alleging a discriminatory employment practice. However, the law explicitly permits the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, or a court, to consider evidence of anti-bias testing or other proactive efforts to avoid discriminatory outcomes in making their determination. The law specifically contemplates that such evidence may include the quality, efficacy, recency, and scope of such testing or efforts, the results of those efforts, and the employer’s response thereto. Enforcement and Penalties Violations of the law constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Practices Act and may be enforced solely by the Attorney General. For violations occurring on or before December 31, 2027, the Attorney General may issue a notice of violation to an employer or developer if the violation can be cured, in which case such developer or employer shall have 60 days to cure such violation prior to the initiation of a formal action.  Importantly, the law does not provide a private right of action. Conclusion Employers deploying AEDT should be prepared to comply with the new law, including by reviewing specifically how and to what extent an AEDT is utilized within the context of the employment-related decision-making process. Employers should also be mindful that, although the use of AEDT systems cannot be used as a shield against claims of discrimination, factfinders may consider an employer’s efforts to audit such systems to ensure the preservation of fair, non-discriminatory outcomes. To that end, regular, independent, and thorough assessments of employment processes in which AEDTs are being used and appropriate remedial actions where necessary to mitigate risk will both be increasingly important under this new law.

Visit Blog

Quota Control: Connecticut’s New Warehouse Law Has Manufacturing Impact

This article was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer, Christopher Costain. In March 2026, a Connecticut bill was signed into law which sets new compliance standards for large warehouse employers that use production quotas and related metrics in assessing worker performance. Once the law goes into effect on July 1, 2026, Connecticut will become the sixth state in the country to have enacted such a law, joining California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington. For large manufacturers, the new law will significantly impact how employee performance is tracked. Who Is Covered The law defines “employer” as any commercial entity that, at any time in the prior 12 months: Employs 250 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in Connecticut; or Employs 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in Connecticut.  Notably, the employee headcount thresholds include workers who are employed indirectly, such as through a third-party employer or temporary staffing service or agency. Covered employees are those workers who are non-exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. The law applies only to employers that operate “warehouse distribution centers,” which is defined as a warehouse or warehouse complex as contained within certain North American Industry Classification Systems Codes related to warehousing and storage, merchant wholesalers, e-commerce and mail-order merchants, couriers and delivery services, and warehouse retail establishments. Covered Quotas & Performance Standards When the law goes into effect, covered employers will be required to disclose information to workers regarding quota and work speed data performance standards. A “quota” is defined as a work performance standard under which: An employee is assigned or required to perform at a specific productivity speed, or complete a certain number of tasks, or produce a certain amount of material within a defined time period; An employee’s time spent performing tasks when a defined time period is measured, recorded, or tallied; or An employee’s performance is ranked in relation to the performance of other employees. The law also defines “work speed data” as the specific metrics collected by an employer indicating the amount of tasks performed or materials handled or produced by an employee within a period of time, and whether any amount of that time was spent not performing tasks or handling materials. Quota Disclosure & Recordkeeping Obligations The law includes several key compliance obligations for covered employers, including quota information disclosure and recordkeeping requirements: No later than August 1, 2026, for current employees, or at the time of hiring for new employees, covered employers must provide a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject, including any potential adverse employment action that may result from a failure to satisfy such quota; If a covered employer changes a quota, it must notify all employees subject to that quota before the new quota goes into effect, in addition to providing a written description of the new quota no later than two business days after the change is made; and Covered employers must maintain records of each employee’s work speed data, the aggregated work speed data for similar employees at the same warehouse distribution center, and written descriptions of quotas provided to employees, for three years.  Importantly, employers that do not assign or require quotas are not required to preserve any of the records required under the law. Employee Requests for Quota Information Under the law, current and former employees may request the following information from their employer or former employer, which must be provided within ten calendar days of receipt of such request, if the employee or former employee believes a quota violates the law: A written description of each quota to which the employee is/was subject; A copy of the employee’s personal work speed data for the prior 90 days/the 90 days prior to the employee’s separation from employment; and A copy of the aggregated work speed data for similar employees at the same warehouse distribution center for the prior 90 days/the 90 days prior to the employee’s separation from employment. Permissible Quotas & Quota Restrictions The law also prohibits employers from implementing any quotas that: Prevent compliance with meal period requirements under Connecticut law; Interfere with the use of bathroom facilities, including travel time to and from such facilities; Measure an employee’s performance over a period of time that is shorter than the employee’s workday; or Set a performance standard that is based solely on ranking the employee’s performance in relation to the performance of other employees. Anti-Retaliation & Penalties Employers are prohibited from (1) discharging, retaliating or discriminating against, or (2) taking any adverse employment action against, any employee or former employee for requesting information related to quotas to which they are subject. The law also establishes a presumption of retaliation for adverse employment actions taken within 90 days of protected activity. The presumption of retaliation can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse employment action was taken for a permissible reason or that the employee’s engagement in protected activity was not a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to take such adverse action. Employees, or the Attorney General (on behalf of a group of employees), may bring an action in the Superior Court to recover damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, employers that violate the law will be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation, and $3,000 for a third or any subsequent violation. Key Takeaways for Manufacturers Manufacturers who may be covered under this new law should review all existing quotas and work speed data metrics to ensure they do not violate the law (such as interfering with meal periods or monitoring employee performance for a period of time that is shorter than the employee’s workday), and ensure that records are being preserved in compliance with the law. Manufacturers should also determine whether existing quota systems are supported by written policies or descriptions, and prepare quota disclosure notices prior to the August 1, 2026, deadline. In all cases, manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with the new law and other important employment law issues. 

Visit Blog

Driving Home the Point – Accommodating Employee Commutes

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain. While employers are typically aware of their obligations to engage in the interactive process in response to reasonable accommodation requests due to disability under federal and state law, employers may not be aware of one specific accommodation request that may be on the rise of late – commuting accommodations. For example, an employee may request to work remotely or under a hybrid schedule based on a medical condition. While such accommodations may be typically associated with remote or hybrid work schedule arrangements, employers may receive other requests such as changes to work schedule or hours among others. Therefore, the question remains – are employers required to accommodate requests related to their daily commute? Commuting Accommodations Under the ADA and Equivalent State Law Whether an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability in connection with their commute to work under applicable law is a legal issue that has evolved in recent years. Historically, an employee’s length and means of commute were considered outside the employer’s control and therefore, typically, employers were not required to provide reasonable accommodations with regard to employee commutes. However, court decisions in recent years, especially after COVID-19, have held that, in certain circumstances, employers may have an obligation to accommodate an employee in relation to their commute. Recent Nationwide Court Decisions and Federal Agency Guidance In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, in EEOC v. Charter Communications, 75 F.4th 729 (7th Cir. 2023), that the employer was required to provide a schedule accommodation to an employee who experienced difficulty driving at night due to a vision impairment. The Charter Court found that, because the employee’s disability substantially interfered with his ability to travel to and from work, and because commuting to work was a prerequisite to the essential job function of attendance, the employee was entitled to a work schedule accommodation that would allow him to drive only during the daytime. The court also took note of the fact that the employee experienced difficulty in accessing the workplace because of their work schedule, over which the employer had control as it related to scheduling the employee for shifts throughout the week. The court distinguished the plaintiff’s need for a commute accommodation from other cases in which employees were not entitled to accommodations based on the fact that they lived far from the workplace, a variable that was within the employee’s control. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance in February 2026 reiterating  the Charter Court’s holding, providing that employers may be required to consider flexible work schedules to enable a qualified employee with a disability to effectively accomplish their commute and access the workplace.  Additionally, in 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, 132 F.4th242 (2d Cir. 2025), that employees may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation even if they are able to perform their essential job functions without an accommodation. Therefore, the fact that an employee is able to perform their essential job functions once they arrive at the workplace and irrespective of their commute, does not foreclose the possibility that they may be entitled to a commuting accommodation, such as a schedule adjustment so the employee may use public transportation or drive during the daytime, to allow them to get to and from work with less difficulty. Key Takeaways for Evaluating Requests for Commute Accommodations In all cases, the employee’s requested commute accommodation must be: 1) reasonable; 2) related to the employee’s ability to perform their essential job functions (as opposed to simply providing a personal benefit to the employee or eliminating a perceived inconvenience to the employee); 3) it cannot eliminate an employee’s essential job function; and 4) it cannot pose an undue hardship on the employer. Manufacturers should also consider the nature of the employee’s difficulty in commuting to work, including whether the employee or the employer have control over the variables that are causing that difficulty.  In addition to engaging in the interactive process with employees who request reasonable accommodations, manufacturers should ensure that requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed carefully by human resources professionals, that employees are asked to clarify the nature of their request when necessary, and that employees provide sufficient medical documentation to support their request. Although employees decide where and how far away from the workplace they live, employers decide how to manage the schedule and should be prepared to review employee requests for commuting accommodations with these key legal principles in mind. Manufacturers should also consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and other important employment law issues. 

Visit Blog

Reminder – Managing Leave During Flu Season

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain. Flu season, which extends into spring, can be a particularly long season for manufacturers, especially when their workforces and workplaces are significantly impacted by the illness. Below are reminders for manufacturers about the various legal implications related to the flu and its impact on the workplace.  Paid Sick Leave Employees who contract the flu without significant medical complications may be able to use accrued paid sick leave under the law and under an employer’s policy to cover time off to seek medical treatment or to rest and recover. Many states and localities have implemented paid sick leave programs in recent years requiring employers to provide paid sick leave to employees in connection with their own illnesses in addition to providing care to family members. In addition to the new paid sick leave laws, existing laws continue to develop, expanding the qualifying reasons for the permitted use of leave and the definitions of family members who are covered by the law. Manufacturers should stay up to date with applicable paid sick leave laws and ensure compliance with changing requirements as employees seek to use their accrued leave to recover during flu season. Family and Medical Leave Although the flu generally does not trigger protections under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or its state equivalents, employees may be entitled to job-protected leave if they, or their covered family member, are suffering from a particularly severe case. Specifically, cases of the flu that involve medical complications may trigger FMLA protections if they constitute a “serious health condition,” meaning they involve either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. Where the flu and related medical complications incapacitate an employee for more than three calendar days and require a course of continuing treatment, the employee may be entitled to leave under the FMLA. In reviewing employee requests for leave in connection with the flu, manufacturers should be aware that mere communications between an employee and a healthcare provider, such as communications through a provider messaging portal or by telephone or email, generally do not constitute continuing treatment under the FMLA. Additionally, manufacturers should keep in mind that they may require employees to submit a certification from a healthcare provider supporting the need for FMLA leave.  Reasonable Accommodations Generally, short-term illnesses such as the flu and the common cold are not considered disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and therefore do not entitle an employee to leave as a reasonable accommodation. However, short-term or temporary conditions that are sufficiently severe or involve complications may meet the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by substantially limiting one or more of the employee’s major life activities. In such rare cases, and to the extent an employee is not otherwise eligible for or has exhausted their available job-protected leave under the federal or state FMLA, employees may be eligible for leave as an accommodation under the ADA. In such cases in which an employee not otherwise eligible for leave under the FMLA requests leave as an accommodation under the ADA, manufacturers should engage in the interactive process to determine whether an accommodation is necessary. Managing Leave and Time Off During Flu Season As the 2026 flu season continues to impact business operations throughout winter and into  spring, manufacturers should ensure that managers are managing employee absence and leave consistent with their policies on attendance, absences, leave, and time off, as well as applicable law. Managers should be reminded to confer with Human Resources about these issues before taking action, to ensure such actions are consistent with the law and relevant policies. In addition, employers who suspect that there may be employee abuse of their time-off and leave policies should consult competent legal counsel to address these issues.

Visit Blog