Considerations When Managing Remote Work Requests as Return-to-Office Mandates Increase

As more companies require employees to return on-site in our post-pandemic world, more employees are requesting the extension of remote work arrangements as a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As these two trends collide, I wanted to write this article to help clarify a framework for handling it.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance built for federal agencies to navigate this scenario. Even though it speaks to the federal sector specifically, the reasoning applies to private employers working through ADA accommodation requests. It’s a useful roadmap for any HR or accommodations team trying to walk this line.

The Crucial Issue: Remote Work Has to Solve a Job Problem (Not a Comfort Problem)

The first distinction worth making is this: not every remote work request rises to the level of a reasonable accommodation. Under the ADA, an accommodation has to do one of three things:

• Help someone get through the application process 
• Perform the essential functions of their job
• Access the same benefits and privileges of employment that everyone else gets

That 2^nd item is where most of these requests live, and it’s also where things get complicated. An employee might genuinely feel that working from home helps them manage a condition or reduces symptoms day-to-day. But symptom relief on its own isn’t the same as enabling job performance. 

If remote work only makes someone feel better without actually being the thing that lets them do their job, it doesn’t automatically qualify as a required accommodation. Employers are allowed to ask the follow-up question: how does this arrangement connect to performing essential functions, not just to feeling better while doing them?

You Don’t Have to Say Yes to the First Idea on the Table

When more than one accommodation would work, the employer gets to choose which one to provide. The employee doesn’t get to pick their preferred option just because they’d rather have it. If an in-office accommodation, like assistive technology, a modified schedule, equipment changes, or adjustments to lighting or noise, would be equally effective, the employer is within its rights to offer that instead of remote work.

This matters for HR teams who’ve been operating under the assumption that remote work requests are mostly take-it-or-leave-it. They’re not. The obligation is to provide an effective accommodation, not the employee’s first choice.

Accommodations Aren’t Permanent, and Granting One is Not Permanent

One of the more practically useful points in the guidance: employers can revisit and adjust accommodations over time. Job duties change. Business needs change. An employee’s condition can change too – getting better or worse. None of that requires waiting for a crisis. Reevaluation should happen on a regular basis or whenever circumstances shift enough to warrant a second look. Medical documentation of the  condition should periodically be revisited.

There’s also reassurance built in for employers who were more flexible than they strictly had to be, especially during the pandemic. Going above and beyond the legal minimum at one point in time doesn’t create a permanent obligation to keep doing so. 

In-Person Presence Can Be an Essential Function

The pandemic forced a lot of employers to temporarily waive in-office attendance, but that temporary necessity didn’t permanently redefine what the job requires. For roles that depend on collaboration, supervision, or hands-on work, in-person presence may genuinely be an essential function, not just a preference. Whether that’s true for a specific role still requires looking at the actual job.

Testing In-Office Accommodations Is a Legitimate Step

If an employee believes a proposed in-office accommodation won’t work, the employer can ask for a clear, evidence-based explanation of why. And if the employer has a reasonable basis to believe the in-office option will be effective, it can ask the employee to try it before defaulting to remote work. If it turns out the in-office accommodation genuinely doesn’t work, the door to remote work reopens. 

There’s a Process for Noncompliance, but It Starts With Communication

An employee who simply refuses to return to the office after a remote work accommodation has been modified or denied can be treated as absent without leave, and disciplined consistent with however the employer normally handles attendance issues. But that step should come after the employer has clearly explained why remote work isn’t available and given the employee a chance to suggest workable in-office alternatives. Discipline should be the result of a breakdown in that conversation, not a substitute for having it.

General Workplace Anxiety Isn’t Automatically a Remote Work Trigger

This is a nuanced one. The ADA doesn’t promise freedom from all discomfort at work, including the anxiety some employees feel about returning to an office environment. The real question is whether that anxiety creates a genuine barrier to performing essential job functions or accessing equal benefits of employment, not whether the office itself is uncomfortable. If an employee can still meet performance expectations on-site, anxiety alone typically doesn’t establish a right to remote work. And even where anxiety does create a real barrier, other in-office accommodations may resolve it before remote work becomes the answer.

A Long Commute Isn’t a Disability Accommodation Issue

Commuting struggles, even significant ones, generally fall outside what an employer is required to accommodate, since employers aren’t typically responsible for how any employee gets to work, disabled or not. That said, flexible scheduling might help an employee manage a difficult commute, and short-term remote work can be a reasonable bridge while someone relocates or works out new transportation arrangements. The distinction is between accommodating the disability and accommodating the commute itself. They’re not the same thing.

What This Means for Employers Right Now

What I am trying to impart is that employers have real discretion, and real tools, to manage these requests thoughtfully rather than reactively. The right approach is still ‘case-by-case:’ 

1. Understand what the employee actually needs
2. Identify whether remote work or some other accommodation gets them there
3. Document the reasoning
4. Be willing to revisit the arrangement as circumstances change on either side

The return-to-office wave isn’t going away, and neither is the accommodation conversation that comes with it. Employers who handle these requests with a clear, consistent process will be in a far stronger position than those reacting to each one as a one-off.