Is Remote Work a Reasonable Accommodation?
Author: Stacey Harris, Coordinator & Director Services, ADA | 504
Requests for remote or hybrid work as a disability accommodation are now among the most common and often the most challenging issues institutions face. For years, employers could often rely on a simple answer: physical presence is essential. Following the widespread expansion of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, that answer no longer carries the same weight on its own.
Courts have not adopted a single uniform approach for determining when working from home can be considered a reasonable accommodation. Each case is highly fact specific. What remains abundantly clear is that when employers sway from the traditional ADA analysis, risks emerge. The analysis must focus on the employee's functional limitations, the essential responsibilities of the position, and whether those duties can be effectively performed with a reasonable accommodation—in this case, remote work—without creating an undue hardship.
The issue became even more visible in February 2026 when the EEOC issued guidance addressing how federal agencies could reassess, and in appropriate circumstances rescind, previously approved telework accommodations. While the guidance applies to the federal sector, it renewed broader conversations regarding the necessity, reasonableness, and scope of remote work.
Managers often cite departmental culture, collaboration, business needs, or long-standing workplace practices when advocating for employees to return to the office. Employees seeking remote work as a disability accommodation may point to successful periods of telework, reduced symptoms, and advances in technology to support their request. Both perspectives may seem reasonable, but neither determines whether remote work is an appropriate accommodation under the ADA.
Instead, the ADA requires an individualized assessment based on the employee's specific limitations, the essential functions of the position, and the impact of the accommodation on business operations. The outcome depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case—not a blanket policy or preference.
The Factors to Consider
There is no single factor that determines whether remote work is a reasonable accommodation for a particular employee. Instead, institutions should work through a series of related questions to make the determination.
Start With the Barrier
Before evaluating remote work as an accommodation, identify the workplace barrier.
What limitation is the employee experiencing? How does that limitation affect the workplace? Is the disability affecting the employee's ability to perform the work itself, access the workplace, or both?
Understanding the barrier helps focus the analysis on the accommodation need rather than the requested solution.
Essential Functions Still Matter
The ADA does not require employers to remove essential functions from the employee's job.
The analysis must be grounded in the actual duties being performed, not job titles, tradition, or assumptions. Job descriptions matter, but only to the extent they accurately reflect the realities of the position.
The central question is whether the essential functions can be effectively performed if some or all work occurs remotely.
Does Physical Presence Matter?
For some positions, the answer to whether physical presence matters is clearly a yes.
Higher education institutions employ professionals whose responsibilities may involve direct student interaction, crisis response, laboratory work, counseling services, residence life responsibilities, supervision, public engagement, or immediate access to equipment and materials.
For other positions, the work may be primarily analytical, transactional, administrative, writing intensive, technology based, or otherwise able to be performed off-site.
The key question is not whether the institution values in-person work and connection. The question is whether physical presence is genuinely necessary to perform the essential functions of the position.
Control and Flexibility
Remote work is not always the only way to address a workplace barrier.
Employees generally control where they live. Employers generally control work schedules, operational expectations, and workplace practices.
Before concluding that remote work is the only effective solution, institutions should consider whether other accommodations address the barrier. Keep in mind, remote work is one possible accommodation, not the default solution. Depending on the barrier involved, effective accommodations may include hybrid schedules, modified hours, temporary telework arrangements during recovery periods, reserved parking, episodic telework during disability related flare ups, or other accommodations that allow the employee to remain productive. What we do know is that the accommodation must be connected to and address the barrier.
The goal of the interactive process is not to identify the broadest possible accommodation, but to determine an effective accommodation that enables an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job.
Operational Impact Must Be Evidence-Based
Operational impacts matter. Institutions may appropriately consider impacts such as supervision effectiveness, collaboration, service delivery, confidentiality, emergency response obligations, access to records, and departmental operations.
The analysis, however, should be grounded in evidence specific to the position in question rather than broad assumptions about remote work.
General statements such as "we collaborate better in person" or "our culture depends on being together" may be relevant, but they should not provide the determining criteria.
Policy Is Not Analysis
Many institutions have adopted telework policies, hybrid work programs, or return-to-office initiatives.
Those policies may provide useful operational guidance, but they do not replace the ADA.
A telework policy or return-to-office mandate does not override the obligation to engage in an individualized assessment. Likewise, a blanket prohibition on remote work is not a substitute for the interactive process.
History Matters, But It Is Not Dispositive
Many institutions continue to wrestle with a question that emerged after the pandemic: Does an employee's history of remote work require an employer to approve a future remote-work request? Not necessarily.
Emergency operations during the pandemic may not reflect normal business requirements. And operations at that time were also impacted by evolving government action and guidance. At the same time, successful remote performance during that period can provide insight into how a position functions in practice.
What worked during the pandemic is not automatically binding today. It is evidence to weigh, not precedent to follow.
Four Case Examples
The outcomes differ, but together these cases illustrate how courts approach remote work requests.
Kellar v. The Yunion, Inc., No. 25-1136 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025)
This case involved a case manager who sought extended remote work after a pipe burst in her building causing the employee concern about potential mold developing. The concerns were unsubstantiated. Although not central to the case, the employer did remediate the water damage, and the building was deemed safe.
The court found that the request was objectively reasonable in the abstract. The employer already permitted some remote work, and the requested accommodation was not inherently unreasonable. The employee lost, however, on the essential functions analysis.
Significant portions of her position involved maintaining and managing hard copy case files that were required to remain onsite under contractual obligations. The court concluded that these responsibilities constituted essential functions of the position. The ADA did not require the employer to eliminate those duties or permanently reassign them to interns or other employees in order to facilitate remote work.
The case illustrates an important distinction: a requested accommodation may be reasonable in concept but still fail because the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the position with that accommodation.
EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015)
The Ford Motor Company case involved a resale buyer who requested extensive telework as an accommodation.
The Sixth Circuit concluded that regular attendance in the workplace was essential to the position because of the highly interactive nature of the work. The court emphasized the importance of teamwork, problem solving, supplier interaction, and real-time collaboration.
The case underscores that physical presence, attendance itself, can be an essential component of a position.
Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 883 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2018)
The Mosby-Meachem case involved an in-house attorney who sought approximately ten weeks of remote work during a high-risk pregnancy that required bed rest.
The employer argued that physical presence was essential. The evidence showed otherwise.
The attorney's work largely consisted of legal research, drafting, document review, and advising clients. She had successfully performed many of those functions remotely, and the evidence supported a conclusion that the essential functions of the position could be performed from home during the requested period.
The Sixth Circuit upheld a jury verdict in her favor.
The takeaway is that courts frequently focus on the actual work being performed rather than on assumptions associated with a title or workplace tradition.
Gardner v. Kutztown Univ., Civil Action 22-1034 (E.D. Pa. Mar 27, 2024)
This case involved a tenured college professor with an autoimmune condition who requested to teach exclusively online as a disability accommodation. The college had adopted a post-pandemic policy requiring all employees to return to in-person work and denied her request. Rather than engaging in a thorough interactive process to determine whether the accommodation was reasonable and feasible, the college concluded that an on-campus presence was an essential job requirement and relied on its blanket in-person teaching policy.
The court found in favor of the professor, noting that she was both able to fully perform the essential functions of her job remotely and that a blanket return to campus policy does not take the place of the interactive process.
This case reinforces that work from home requests must be evaluated through a good faith individualized assessment. Relying on a blanket return-to-work policy will not override an employer's obligation to walk through the traditional interactive process to determine if the request is reasonable.
The Takeaways
Remote work requests are not resolved by policy statements alone. Nor are they resolved by an employee's preference, an institution's culture, or what happened during the pandemic.
The strongest decisions are grounded in thoughtful interactive processes that examine the employee's limitations, the essential functions of the position, the operational realities of the workplace, and the evidence regarding how the work is actually performed.
For employers, the most important question is rarely whether remote work is a good idea. The question is whether it is a reasonable and effective accommodation for this employee, in this position, under these circumstances.
That is why remote work remains one of the most fact-specific accommodation issues institutions face. It also explains why using a consistent framework helps employers maintain neutrality and compliance when determining accommodations.
Visit our ADA | 504 page to learn more about how we can assist your office with ADA accommodations and compliance.
