The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued guidance addressing remote work accommodations. Though the guidance is directed toward federal agencies, it may be instructive for private employers with remote work arrangements.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to return their employees to the office and end remote work arrangements where consistent with applicable laws. Like many employers confronting this issue over the last few years, federal agencies had questions about when they were allowed to end, modify, or deny remote work accommodations and how they should proceed going forward, consistent with the law and the President’s memorandum. The EEOC answered these questions in Frequently Asked Questions from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities. Here is a summary of some of the most notable points.
When considering returning employees to work and ending remote work arrangements, employers must be clear on when remote work arrangements are reasonable accommodations and when they are not. Under federal and state law, a reasonable accommodation entails some change in the work environment that allows individuals with disabilities to:
- Participate in the application process;
- Perform the essential functions of their position; or
- Enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.
If the remote work arrangement isn’t serving one of those purposes and is primarily for the employee’s benefit, it is not a reasonable accommodation under the law.
If the arrangement is a reasonable accommodation, the EEOC guidance reminds agencies that they are not necessarily required to continue all such arrangements. Agencies are allowed to assess whether a need for the accommodation continues based on the unique circumstances and may explore alternative accommodations that may be effective.
At the same time, the EEOC guidance is clear that the directive to return to in-person work doesn’t override the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Agencies should not take a blanket approach and should instead engage in the interactive process and make an individualized determination in each case. As part of this process, the agencies may need updated documentation. Even if remote work was granted without sufficient information, which was not uncommon during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency doesn’t forfeit its option to revisit the issue and make a new decision based on sufficient evidence.
Another common occurrence during the pandemic was temporarily excusing employees from performing certain essential functions of their positions. The EEOC guidance points out that the pandemic’s unique circumstances didn’t permanently change a position’s essential functions or establish that remote work was always feasible or that it doesn’t pose an undue hardship. Employers have no obligation to refrain from restoring all an employee’s essential duties. Being present in-person may be essential for certain jobs, especially interactive ones that require supervision and teamwork. However, the EEOC notes that whether a position’s essential functions require in-person work will depend on the unique circumstances of each position. Employers should refrain from generalizing.
Employers commonly receive accommodation requests related to anxiety about returning to the office. The EEOC takes the position that this doesn’t automatically warrant a remote work accommodation. The law doesn’t create a right to be free from all discomfort, stress or anxiety in the workplace. The issue is whether the employee has a condition that limits the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of their job. If the employee can perform the essential functions in-person, then remote work may not be required; however, if other accommodations won’t be effective, then remote work may be warranted, assuming it doesn’t impose an undue hardship on the employer.
The EEOC’s guidance doesn’t change the law and isn’t binding on courts. It is, however, a good indication of how the EEOC will view these issues in enforcement actions. The guidance is also a good reminder for employers of their general obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to provide reasonable accommodations to employees that may need some change in their work environment to perform the essential functions of their positions or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.
Employers trying to return their employees to in-person work may do so in many cases but must continue to be mindful of their obligations under federal and state law, which require individualized assessments based on an interactive process between employer and employee rather than a blanket approach.
James W. Ward, J.D., Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about Reasonable Accommodations in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
