By Samantha Halem, Laurie Bishop, John Arnold April 23, 2026
As return-to-office expectations continue to evolve, many employers are seeing an increase in requests for remote work as a “reasonable accommodation” of an employee’s disability. Recent FAQs on Federal Sector Telework from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), although technically only applicable to federal workers, offer insight into how the EEOC may handle failure to accommodate claims involving remote work. The guidance underscores a familiar but critical point: to avoid potential liability, accommodation decisions should be individualized, well-reasoned, and documented.
It is important to remember that the EEOC only enforces federal law. State agencies such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) enforce state laws that may impose broader accommodation obligations than federal law.
Deciding whether to approve a remote workplace accommodation request is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and employers face legal risk if such requests are not properly handled. When considering a request to work remotely as an accommodation, employers should consider the following five questions:
1. Can the employee perform the essential functions of the job remotely?
This is the threshold inquiry. If an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the role from home, remote work is unlikely to be a reasonable accommodation.
This analysis should be grounded in actual job requirements, not just general preferences for in-person work. Employers should be prepared to identify which specific duties require on-site presence and explain why those duties cannot be performed remotely. Broad statements about collaboration, productivity, or workplace culture, without more, may be insufficient if the decision is challenged.
2. What has the employee (or other employees in similar roles) been allowed to do in the past?
Past practice may matter. The EEOC’s guidance acknowledges that it had observed agency employers “exceed[ing] their reasonable accommodation obligations from a desire to be a supportive employer for disabled individuals or in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”, and that such an employer “is not obligated to continue providing them and can discontinue such when they exceed what is legally required….”
That said, if the employee was previously permitted to work remotely, the employer should be prepared to explain why that employee’s on-site presence is now being required. The perception of inconsistent treatment across employees in similar roles is another source of risk. Employers should therefore also evaluate whether accommodations are, to the extent appropriate based on job duties and individual medical needs, consistently handled.
3. Is the request medically necessary due to a disability?
Remote work as an accommodation must be tied to a disability-related limitation. If it is based solely on preference or convenience, it is not required as a reasonable accommodation.
Employers are entitled to request medical documentation supporting the need for remote work and explaining how the accommodation would enable the employee to perform the job.
4. Are we engaging in a true interactive process or jumping to an answer?
The interactive process is not a formality. It is a legal requirement.
Employers should engage in a meaningful, good faith dialogue with the employee to understand the limitations involved and to explore potential accommodations. That process should be documented, including what was requested, what alternatives were considered, and why certain options were determined to be ineffective or infeasible (keeping in mind that “undue hardship” is generally a high bar).
When disputes arise, enforcement agencies and courts often focus on the process as much as the decision itself.
5. Is there an alternative accommodation that would be effective?
Even if full-time remote work is not reasonable, the analysis should not end there.
Employers should consider whether other accommodations could effectively address the employee’s needs, such as a modified schedule, a hybrid arrangement, intermittent leave, or adjustments to the work environment. Demonstrating flexibility and a willingness to explore alternatives can significantly reduce risk, even where requests to work remotely are ultimately denied.
A Final Thought
Remote work is not required in every situation. The key issue is whether the employer’s decision-making process is consistent, well-reasoned, and supported by the facts.
Handled thoughtfully, remote work requests can be managed effectively. Handled poorly or inconsistently, they can become the foundation for a dispute.
Assessing accommodation requests can be tricky business, especially in this era of evolving workplace expectations. If you are working through a request for an accommodation and are not sure if it is reasonable or if it would create an undue hardship, don’t hesitate to reach out to an HRW attorney for guidance.
For questions or more information, please contact:
