Three years after the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was no longer an immediate public health emergency, on-site worker attendance remains below pre-pandemic levels.
According to a recent Gallup poll, as of May 2026, 52% of employees reported working on a hybrid schedule (part in-office, part at-home), 26% of employees reported teleworking exclusively, and just 22% of employees reported working completely on-site. By contrast, in January 2019, about one year before the pandemic’s onset, 60% of employees reported working exclusively on-site, whereas just 8% of employees were exclusively remote, and 32% of employees were on a hybrid schedule.
As employers seek to restore pre-pandemic workplace practices through return-to-office policies, they should be aware that an in-person attendance requirement does not negate their obligation to participate in the interactive process to explore whether there is a need to reasonably accommodate qualifying employees – and does not preclude telework as a potential accommodation.
The EEOC provided recent guidance that may help employers navigate telework accommodation requests under federal and California law:
Can Telework Ever Be a Reasonable Accommodation?
Yes. According to EEOC guidance, when a disabled employee cannot perform the essential functions of his or her job position, the employer should consider telework as a reasonable accommodation. If there are alternative accommodations that permit the employee to perform their job’s essential functions of their job, the employer may elect to offer to such accommodations first. If, however, in-person attendance is an essential job function such that telework would be an unreasonable accommodation (or telework would present an undue hardship to the employer), the employer may not be required to offer telework as an accommodation.
How Should Employers Approach The Interactive Process?
The EEOC stresses the importance of evidence-based decision making at every stage of the interactive process. For example, to determine whether telework (or an alternative option) is a reasonable accommodation, employers will need to base their decision on the employee’s medical documentation and good faith dialogue with the employee. As a general matter, an employee’s first-hand account of how an accommodation is playing out is highly relevant to whether an alternative accommodation is needed. For that reason, employers should be receptive to employee feedback and be ready to suggest alternative accommodations as part of their continuing duty to engage in the interactive process.
Can An Employer Re-Evaluate A Telework Accommodation?
The EEOC states that employers are permitted to reevaluate telework accommodations in response to material changes, including changes in the employee’s condition, changes in job requirements, changes in operational needs, and a change in law. If, after reevaluation and individualized assessment of an employee’s circumstances, the employer determines telework is no longer necessary as an accommodation, it may be proper to replace telework with reasonable in-office accommodations. However, employers should exercise caution and thoroughly examine the circumstances of each case and engage in a good faith dialogue with employees before rescinding any accommodations.
What If An Employee Challenges An Alternative In-Office Accommodation?
According to the EEOC, an employer should give the employee the opportunity to explain in detail why the in-office accommodation is or will be ineffective, and request supporting evidence. The EEOC suggests that employers insist on employees trying out a suggested accommodation if they simply claim, without evidence, that an accommodation they have not tried will be ineffective. If the employee is able to show an in-office accommodation is ineffective and does not permit them to perform their job position’s essential functions, then it may be prudent for the employer to offer at least part-time telework as a reasonable accommodation.
What If A Previous Full-Time Telework Accommodation Removed Essential Job Functions?
The EEOC has concluded that an employer’s decision to temporarily excuse performance of one of more essential job functions (such in-person attendance) when it closed its workplace due to COVID-19 does not mean that any changes to a job’s essential functions were permanent. Nor does it mean that telework is always a reasonable accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship. The essential job functions, and the availability of telework, are fact-specific determinations.
Recent Case Law: Whether Telework Is A Reasonable Accommodation Depends On The Facts and Circumstances of Each Case
Although employers can assert that in-person attendance is an essential job function or that telework imposes an undue hardship, they should be aware that proving such arguments may be difficult.
For example, in a 2025 decision, a District of Columbia federal district court denied an employer’s summary judgment motion after it was sued for failing to provide remote work as a reasonable accommodation. The employee, a breast cancer survivor, worked remotely full-time for two years as an accommodation, and then sought to extend the accommodation. The employer denied her requests. At summary judgment, the employer contended that remote work was not a reasonable accommodation because the employee would have been unable to perform the duties listed on her job description that required in-person attendance. The employer also asserted that permitting remote work would have created undue hardship, as critical staffing vacancies required the employee’s on-site presence to attend to customers and assist other departments. However, based on evidence of the employee’s exemplary performance as a remote employee and the support of multiple managers, the Court determined that a reasonable juror could conclude that the on-site elements of the job were marginal, rather than essential, and that remote work would not have created undue hardship.
In contrast, in a May 8, 2026 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit alleging failure to accommodate on the grounds that full-time telework was not a reasonable accommodation. An Army contractor, who was diagnosed with multiple mental disorders and permitted to telework part-time as an accommodation, repeatedly requested full-time remote work after his condition worsened. The Army and GStek, the contracting employer, denied the contractor’s requests. Shortly thereafter, GStek fired the contractor for absenteeism. The Court of Appeals noted that in-person attendance was an essential function of the contractor’s job. The Army had determined that allowing full-time telework was not in its best interests, and GStek’s supervisors worried that permitting full-time remote work would open floodgates to such requests and damage GStek’s relationship with the Army. For these reasons, the requests for full-time telework were properly denied as unreasonable accommodations that conflicted with the job position’s essential functions.
Conclusion
There is no bright-line rule for determining whether telework constitutes a reasonable accommodation. Whether telework is reasonable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, when implementing return-to-work policies, employers should recognize that a mandatory in-person attendance requirement does not override an employee’s right to request a reasonable accommodation, including telework. When remote work is requested as an accommodation, employers must promptly engage in the interactive process. If an employee’s disability prevents regular in-person attendance, but the essential functions of the position can be performed remotely, employers should be prepared to offer telework—whether full-time or part-time—as a reasonable accommodation, absent an undue hardship.
