New England Biz Law Update
A recent federal court decision may offer employers additional support when responding to employee requests for permanent remote work as a disability accommodation.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it denied an employee’s request for full-time remote work after offering a hybrid arrangement instead.
The case involved an IT systems administrator working for a military contractor who had temporarily worked remotely during the pandemic. After the client required contractors to return to in-person work, the employee requested permanent remote work as an accommodation related to autism, depression, and social anxiety.
The employer allowed remote work two to three days per week but declined a full-time remote arrangement. After about two months of hybrid work, the employee reiterated his need for full-time remote work and was subsequently terminated.
The employee sued, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA. Both a lower court and the 5th Circuit sided with the employer.
Court rationale
The court emphasized several long-standing ADA principles:
- In-person work may still be an essential job function. Courts generally give weight to employer judgment when determining what duties are essential.
- Temporary remote work does not automatically change job requirements. The court said COVID-era arrangements do not necessarily redefine essential functions.
- Employers do not have to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation. The court found that offering hybrid work could satisfy ADA obligations even if the employee requested something different.
- Full-time remote work remains difficult to establish as a required accommodation. The court repeated prior guidance that full-time telework is “rarely a reasonable accommodation.”
Compliance considerations
The decision does not mean employers can automatically reject remote work requests or adopt blanket return-to-office rules without considering accommodation obligations.
The court reinforced that accommodation requests still require individualized review and an interactive process.
Employers may want to ensure job descriptions clearly reflect in-person expectations, document business reasons supporting attendance requirements, and consistently evaluate remote work requests based on the specific job duties and circumstances involved, rather than employer preference alone.
