Employers are increasing the push for employees to return to physical workplaces. Whether through flexible hybrid models or return-to-office mandates, companies are reevaluating what work looks like in a post-pandemic world. This dynamic has sparked a wave of legal and practical considerations for employers navigating return-to-work policies, especially considering the rising number of employee requests for indefinite remote work arrangements as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or local state laws. Are employers obligated to provide such accommodations?
When an employee requests an ADA workplace accommodation due to a disability, the employer is required to engage in an "interactive process"—a collaborative, good-faith dialogue aimed at identifying appropriate and reasonable accommodations. This process involves timely communication between the employer and employee to clarify the employee's needs, review relevant medical documentation if necessary, and explore possible accommodations that would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of their job without causing undue hardship to the employer.
In Rogers v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to the employer on an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. The court found that the employee's request for indefinite remote work was not facially reasonable, as the employer had established that in-office presence was an essential function of the job. Because the requested accommodation would not allow the employee to work in person immediately or in the near future, it failed to meet the ADA's standard for a reasonable accommodation.
The court emphasized that Rogers bore the burden of showing her request was reasonable—meaning it would enable her to perform essential job functions. While she argued that physical presence wasn't necessary, having worked remotely in the past, the court sided with BPU, which requires all employees to be on-site because of the critical services it provides. The court distinguished temporary remote work from an indefinite arrangement, concluding that the latter was facially unreasonable and insufficient under the ADA, as the request would not allow her to return to work in the workplace either now or in the near future.
Imagine that an employee with a diagnosed anxiety disorder and agoraphobia requests to work remotely on an indefinite basis, as the conditions are significantly worsened by commuting and working in crowded office environments. The employee provides documentation from a licensed mental health professional indicating that working from home is necessary to manage their conditions effectively. Is the company obligated to provide indefinite remote work as a reasonable accommodation?
It depends. If the employee's role—such as a data analyst or software developer—can be performed fully remotely, and if the employee maintained strong performance while previously working from home, the employee may argue that indefinite remote work is a reasonable accommodation that enables them to perform the essential functions of their job. As long as it does not impose an undue hardship on the employer, the employee may be entitled to such accommodation in this scenario.
Consider another employee who is a team supervisor in a manufacturing plant and develops a mild back condition that makes prolonged sitting uncomfortable. The employee requests to work from home indefinitely, citing the back issue as the reason. But the employee's job requires daily in-person oversight of floor operations, managing on-site staff, conducting safety checks, and addressing real-time production issues—duties that cannot be effectively performed remotely. Based on this, the employee's request may be denied, as the accommodation is not reasonable in light of the job's requirements. However, the burden remains on the employer to explore alternative accommodations with the employee that may not present an undue hardship (e.g., providing ergonomic seating, flexible breaks, or temporary remote work during recovery).
These examples highlight the need to assess remote work accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis, weighing the specific job requirements and whether remote work can realistically allow the employee to perform essential functions of the job. Employers should also be wary of state-specific requirements that might impose additional obligations.
Employers with questions about how to handle accommodation requests are invited to contact the authors of this article or any other attorney in Venable's Labor and Employment Group.