One of the burdens of the employer (without dismissing the claim) is that places like libraries depend on in-person staff to meet the needs of library-goers of every kind of stripe. If a librarian is working from home, the library needs to hire someone else to interface with the public. That wasn't necessary during the first two years of COVID because libraries had extremely limited days and times when the doors were open. So, a librarian who could work on the catalog still fit into the budget. But now, the library has to pay for two librarians where one sufficed during COVID.

It's not "reasonable" to force the employer to hire a second person to do the job that one person used to be able to do, within their budget.

I'm empathetic to the needs of the librarian, because any disability requiring accommodation is sure to ruffle feathers and garner unwanted attention by the public, co-workers, etc. Asking for a change in policy in ADA terms is a sticky wicket. Especially when the job description previously operated on the assumption that the work would be done in a public library, and would require interaction with the public.

Speaking as a member of the public who goes to libraries, limited operations during COVID was extremely burdensome. Too much DIY. Can't speak for a teenager on this, but young people at the library who need help finding materials relevant to their studies or even asking for reading recommendations on a particular subject, need 'live' librarians.

A compromise may be struck, by allowing the librarian to do a different kind of work, that doesn't depend on being at the library. But it may involve a cut in pay. That's why it's a compromise. Let the librarian stay home, to free the funds up to pay another person to provide in-person work. If she has a disability, she can also try to get SSDI benefits. Being denied work-from-home only, I think SSDI would be on her side and agree there's no other work she can feasibly do.

Although libraries are run by the City, they are basically a service industry. This means that books have to be reshelved, taken off shelves for those put on hold, and interacting with library patrons who need help, need to get library cards or other in person assistance.

I find it hard enough when visiting something like a library to find a member of staff to help me when I need help. This sounds like there will be less available staff to deal with the public's needs. Is that going to cause longer lines at the desks?

The idea that librarians can work remotely seems a stretch. The idea that a librarian takes work home must mean that those materials are not available for the public to check out.

Or am I missing something?

Bystander, I think we are not privy to the entire ins and outs of the request. There is probably a "chat with a librarian" feature that is already filled by a different librarian. Every library has one of those, these days. Firing one person to give another employee the job to satisfy an accommodation is also not "reasonable". We aren't getting the whole story here.

Of course, we're not getting the whole story. A lawsuit was filed. It's self-explanatory why certain details are withheld. It stands to reason that a librarian should be at the library, but I feel bad for her. Unless you're an attorney who handles this type of law, none of us know what we're talking about. Let it play out. I wish her well.

Lawsuits are public records. A plaintiff can file as many as they want to, especially if they want to become known as a "vexatious litigant". This is where public knowledge can damage a person's reputation. A respondent has to file an answer, to avoid a default judgment. They can wait until the last possible moment to file their response. An interesting odd factoid is that this article doesn't say who was interviewed by the writer. If anyone was. Revealing the contents of a lawsuit in a newspaper isn't libelous or defamatory unless it is knowingly false.

Journalistic merry-go-rounds have done as much or more damage in many cases than an actual lawsuit. If both the plaintiff and the respondent were asked about the case and declined to offer further information, well........ you do the math. "Low hanging fruit" comes to mind.

Let me explain how libraries work to the commentators expressing confusion about how a librarian can work from home. Most of the staff on the floor in libraries are not librarians, but are library assistants and aides. They are perfectly capable of answering the majority of questions patrons have and helping them locate materials. However, it takes a professional with a master’s degree to catalog materials, evaluate purchases and make recommendations. In addition, librarians are expected to help manage the operations, provide ideas for improvement and create programming. All of these functions can be done remotely and were routinely performed at home during the pandemic. An employee who is immune compromised can and should be accommodated, even if they are a librarian.

It depends on the type of librarian.
Many reference librarians could WFH a good amount, with exception if they need to access in print reference materials in the library. Not everything is online, contrary to what Google wishes you to believe.
It appears this librarian is a cataloger and she was bringing items, likely including books, home to process. This is impractical for any reasonable amount of work production.
Solution: agreement to alter the job meaningfully and still require reasonable work production.