Remote work isn't a default disability accommodation

Since the COVID‑19 pandemic, employers have been balancing stricter return‑to‑office (RTO) policies with a growing number of employee requests to work from home as a form of disability accommodation. Recent court decisions provide important guidance on this evolving area of the law and reinforce a key principle under state and federal law: while remote work may be a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances, it is not automatically required simply because remote work was feasible during the pandemic.

The current legal landscape: FEHA and the ADA framework

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities unless doing so would create undue hardship. (Gov't Code, § 12940, subds. (m), (n); Nadaf‑Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 984). FEHA also mandates that employers engage in a timely, good‑faith interactive process to identify effective accommodations.

On the federal level, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals who can perform the essential functions of their positions with or without accommodation. (Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp. (1999) 526 U.S. 795, 803.)

The pandemic fundamentally changed workplace expectations and how essential job functions can be performed. Because many employees worked remotely for extended periods, plaintiffs increasingly argue that telework has become a reasonable accommodation. Courts, however, have consistently rejected a categorical rule. Instead, they continue to evaluate remote work requests based on the specific duties of the position, the employee's limitations and the employer's operational needs.

Where courts have drawn the line

Courts have long emphasized that "reasonable accommodation" requires a fact‑specific inquiry. Historically, decisions have often favored employers where in‑person work is closely tied to essential job functions.

Yet, employers cannot summarily deny telework requests. In Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association (9th Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 1128, 1136, the 9th Circuit held that an employer violated its obligations by rejecting a work‑from‑home request without exploring options through the interactive process. The decision serves as an important reminder that employers must engage in a meaningful, good-faith interactive process before rejecting telework as a potential accommodation.

Current trends: Hybrid models as a middle ground

California courts have similarly clarified the limits of telework as an accommodation. In Allos v. Poway Unified School District (2025), a California appellate court rejected an employee's claim that she was entitled to permanent remote work. The plaintiff relied on a prior vaccine reaction, concerns about future vaccination and caregiving responsibilities to justify continued remote work. The court concluded that FEHA protections require a medically substantiated disability rather than generalized fear of illness or a preference for remote work, reinforcing that telework is not a default entitlement.

Federal courts have reached similar conclusions. In Hayes v. GStek, Inc. (5th Cir., May 2026), an employee with autism, depression and anxiety requested full‑time remote work after the pandemic ended. The employer instead offered a hybrid arrangement. After the employee insisted on remaining fully remote and was terminated, he sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation. Both the district court and the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of the employer, holding that the employee was not a "qualified individual" because he could not perform essential functions under the requested accommodation. The court further emphasized that the employer satisfied its obligations by offering a reasonable alternative, even if it was not the employee's preferred arrangement.

Looking ahead: Key takeaways for employers

These cases highlight two principles likely to shape litigation. First, employers are not required to provide the specific accommodation an employee requests if another effective option exists. Second, the widespread use of remote work during the pandemic does not permanently redefine essential job functions or eliminate the importance of in‑person work where it remains integral.

For employers, telework requests must be evaluated individually, based on the employee's medical limitations and the essential functions of the position. Employers should ensure that job descriptions accurately reflect current operational requirements, including whether in‑person attendance is necessary.

Employers should take this opportunity to evaluate the essential functions of positions throughout their organizations and confirm that those functions accurately reflect how work is actually performed. If a role requires regular in-person attendance because of collaboration, supervision, customer interaction, equipment access, security concerns or business needs, those requirements should be clearly identified and documented.

Equally important, job descriptions, offer letters, performance expectations, accommodation records and related employment documents should align with the actual requirements of the position. Courts routinely examine such documentation when determining whether a function is truly "essential." Outdated or inconsistent records can undermine an employer's position in litigation regarding remote-work accommodations

Employers should also apply such requirements consistently across roles to avoid claims of disparate treatment and avoid reflexively denying telework requests based solely on general RTO preferences. Instead, decisions should be grounded in legitimate business considerations supported by evidence of undue hardship or the inability to perform essential job functions remotely.

Above all, the interactive process remains central. Employers that engage in a timely, well‑documented and good‑faith dialogue while exploring alternatives such as hybrid arrangements are best positioned to comply with legal obligations and mitigate risk. As telework claims continue to evolve, employers that clearly define essential job functions and maintain employment documents reflecting the need for in-person work will be best positioned to defend their decisions.

Vanessa Aguiniga, a summer associate at Lathrop GPM LLP and J.D. candidate at the University of California, Davis School of Law, contributed to this publication.