As its defense to Colwell’s claims, Rite Aid argued that it had no duty to accommodate Colwell’s request because an employee’s commute to and from work is not sufficiently related to the job and, therefore, not the proper subject of an Accommodation Launceston. This is an important point. The parties agreed that Colwell did not need an Accommodation Launceston once she got to work—the question in this case was whether the employer had a duty to provide an Accommodation Launceston to enable her to get there in the first place. The trial court agreed with Rite Aid, and held:
