New Guidance: Full-Time Remote Work as an ADA Accommodation

The following article was submitted by Brody and Associates, LLC. It is posted here with permission. 

---

As employers continue to implement return-to-office policies and because remote work has become so commonplace, employers are continuously facing employee requests to work remotely as a disability accommodation.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

But the ADA does not require employers to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation, nor does it require an employer to eliminate an essential job function.

Those distinctions have become especially important in the post-pandemic workplace.

During the pandemic, many employers temporarily permitted employees to work from home, including in roles historically performed exclusively on site.

Employees now frequently argue that those temporary arrangements prove the job can be performed remotely.

Courts and agencies, however, continue to recognize that temporary pandemic-era flexibility does not necessarily rewrite a position’s essential functions.

Fifth Circuit’s Decision: Hayes v. GStek

In May 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue in Hayes v. GStek, Inc.

The plaintiff, an IT systems administrator for an Army contractor, was permitted to telework temporarily during the pandemic.

When the Army and the contractor transitioned away from telework, he requested full-time remote work as an accommodation for disabilities including autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder.

Although the employer offered a hybrid schedule allowing telework two to three days per week, the plaintiff maintained he needed to work from home full time.

The court rejected the notion that temporary remote work during the pandemic established full-time remote work remains reasonable today.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the employee’s ADA claims.

The court emphasized an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without reasonable accommodation, to be a qualified individual under the ADA.

The court further observed that regular work-site attendance is generally an essential function of most jobs, and full-time remote work is rarely a reasonable accommodation.

Importantly, the court rejected the notion that temporary remote work during the pandemic established full-time remote work remains reasonable today.

The decision is consistent with other federal appellate decisions recognizing employers may require in-person attendance where on-site work is tied to essential duties, supervision, collaboration, security, client requirements, or operational needs.

What the Decision Means for Employers

Hayes is helpful authority for employers, particularly those with legitimate business reasons for requiring on-site attendance. It reinforces several management-side principles:

• In-person attendance may be an essential function. Employers should be prepared to explain why physical presence matters for a particular role, rather than relying on generalized preferences for office work, but such arguments will be given great deference.
• COVID-era telework does not permanently redefine the job. Temporary remote work, especially during extraordinary circumstances, does not automatically prove full-time telework is reasonable indefinitely.
• The employer need not provide the employee’s preferred accommodation. If another accommodation is effective, such as a hybrid schedule, modified workspace, altered supervision, schedule adjustment, or other workplace support, the employer may select that option. The employer has the right to insist on any viable accommodation.
• Individualized analysis remains essential. Employers must avoid blanket denials and must rather engage in the “interactive process” with the employee which will consider the employee’s limitations, the job’s essential functions, and current operational needs.

Remote Work May Still Be Reasonable in Some Circumstances

Employers should not read Hayes as a rule that remote work can never be a reasonable accommodation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long recognized that work-from-home arrangements may be reasonable where the employee’s disability prevents successful on-site performance and the job, or parts of the job, can be performed remotely without significant difficulty or expense.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long recognized that work-from-home arrangements may be reasonable.

The analysis will depend on the position, the requested schedule, the employee’s limitations, and the employer’s actual business needs.

For example, if an employer already permits similarly situated employees to work from home periodically, and there is no meaningful reason the requesting employee must be physically present on the requested days, remote work may be difficult to reject.

Likewise, a limited or hybrid telework arrangement may be reasonable even where full-time remote work is not.

Practical Steps for Employers

Employers responding to remote-work accommodation requests should consider the following steps:

1. Review the job description and actual duties. Confirm whether in-person attendance is tied to specific essential functions, such as equipment access, confidential systems, direct supervision, teamwork, client service, safety, or security.
2. Document the interactive process. Request appropriate medical information when the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious and evaluate the employee’s restrictions against the position’s actual requirements.
3. Consider effective alternatives. Before denying full-time remote work, evaluate whether a hybrid schedule, modified workspace, adjusted hours, leave, noise reduction, relocation within the office, or other accommodation would be effective.
4. Apply policies consistently. Inconsistent exceptions can undermine the argument that on-site attendance is essential.
5. Reassess prior arrangements when circumstances change. Employers may revisit telework accommodations when job duties, business needs, staffing, technology, or the employee’s medical circumstances change, but should do so through an individualized analysis.

Bottom Line

Hayes provides employers with useful support for enforcing return-to-office requirements when in-person attendance is genuinely essential to the job. But it does not eliminate the obligation to engage in the interactive process or to consider telework where it would enable the employee to perform essential functions without undue hardship.

Employers should continue to make case-by-case determinations, document the business reasons supporting on-site work, and consider whether an effective alternative accommodation is available.

Skilled employment law counsel can assist employers in evaluating remote-work accommodation requests, updating job descriptions and attendance policies, and documenting defensible return-to-office decisions.

---

About the authors: Robert Brody is managing partner at Brody and Associates, LLC, which he founded in 1997. Before that Brody was a managing partner for Jackson Lewis, one of the largest management labor and employment law firms in the U.S. Matthew Chiota is an associate at Brody and Associates, LLC, advising clients on labor, employment, and benefits law matters.