This Court, in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett. 535 U.S. 391 (2002), considered what burden of proof governs the determination that an accommodation is reasonable under U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Regulatory factors determine what job functions may be considered essential and require a showing that production standards are imposed in fact and not just on paper. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n); 29 CFR pt. 1630, App. § 1630. 2(n), 395.

1. Whether the reasonableness standard articulated in Barnett requires that, a denial or removal of telework or other normally reasonable accommodation based on employer allegations of performance decline, must causally link performance to the accommodation by way of removal of an essential function of the position in order to render a normally reasonable accommodation unreasonable.

2. Whether forcing an employee to work in excess of her known medical restrictions, causing her to endure pain as a condition of employment, is a discrete act of discrimination so severe it constitutes constructive discharge and a hostile work environment under the ADA and Title VII.

A subsidiary question is whether career sabotaging acts that directly interfere with work performance can meet the threshold set by this Court in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).

Whether the reasonableness standard articulated in Barnett requires that, a denial or removal of telework or other normally reasonable accommodation based on employer allegations of performance decline, must causally link performance to the accommodation by way of removal of an essential function of the position in order to render a normally reasonable accommodation unreasonable