The 5 ADA missteps HR can’t afford when employees request work from home

Before the pandemic, remote work was uncommon for many roles. During and after it, millions of employees proved they could work effectively from home. That history now matters. Courts, regulators and employees all look at what has worked before. If someone has done their job remotely, that experience becomes part of the ADA conversation.

The disability reasons behind accommodation requests are broad and human:

• New expectations among early career employees: Many requests come from early career employees. In fact, 66% of ADA accommodation requests in 2025 came from employees with less than five years of tenure.³ These workers often bring different expectations about support at work and are more likely to actively use available benefits, time off and leave policies when challenges arise. Some employers report that employees are using AI to help draft work-from-home accommodation requests for HR.
• Increased focus on mental health: Mental health also plays a major role. Four in ten employees say they’ve taken a leave of absence to care for their own mental health.⁴ Noise, crowding and long days onsite can feel more difficult to manage, compared with experiences during hybrid or remote work periods.
• High frequency of musculoskeletal issues: Physical mobility matters too. About one in five U.S. adults report difficulty walking or climbing stairs,⁵ a key indicator of musculoskeletal-related disability. Large campuses, long commutes and full days in meetings may feel like added strain for employees managing these conditions, prompting requests for support or adjustments.

At the heart of ADA compliance is the interactive process. This is a back and forth conversation between employer and employee to understand what’s getting in the way and what might help.

Problems arise when employers skip this step or treat it as a box check. Sending a quick denial without discussion or asking for documentation without explaining why can undermine the process and the decision.

Employees have responsibilities here too. When they refuse to engage, fail to provide needed information or insist on only one solution, courts often side with employers. But the employer still needs to show they made a good faith effort to engage.

What to do instead: Have a real conversation. Ask what limitations the employee is experiencing, what tasks are affected and what solutions might help. The accommodation doesn’t have to be the employee’s first choice, but it does need to be effective.

When remote work is requested, it’s easy to focus only on location. But the ADA is about accommodating limitations, not granting preferred work arrangements. Many limitations tied to remote work requests can be addressed onsite with thoughtful adjustments. Denying a request without exploring those options can signal that the interactive process wasn’t fully considered.

What to do instead: Look for ways to accommodate the work, not just the location. For example:

• An employee with ADHD who struggles in an open office may benefit from a reduced distraction workspace or protected focus time.
• An employee with anxiety triggered by office crowds and noise may benefit from quiet rooms, enclosed workspaces or virtual attendance for large meetings.
• An employee with chronic pain may benefit from closer parking, shorter walking routes, movement breaks or ergonomic supports.

Exploring these options shows good faith engagement, even if remote work is ultimately not reasonable.

Another common mistake is dismissing prior remote work arrangements as irrelevant. Employers may assume that temporary pandemic era flexibility has no bearing on today’s decisions. In reality, past remote work can be relevant evidence. If an employee successfully performed essential job functions remotely in the past, that experience may factor into whether remote work is reasonable now.

What to do instead: Ask what has worked before. Consider whether the role, expectations or tools have changed. Past success doesn’t automatically mean remote work must be granted, but ignoring it altogether can weaken the employer’s position.

Accommodation decisions often happen quickly, through email or hallway conversations. Without clear documentation, it can be difficult to explain why a decision was made, especially if it’s challenged later.

Inconsistent handling across similar requests can also create risk, even when decisions were made in good faith.

What to do instead: Use a consistent process for all ADA requests. Keep job descriptions current, document the interactive process and record the options considered and why certain accommodations were or were not effective. Clear documentation helps protect the organization and builds trust with employees.

Recent court decisions show how employers can make defensible ADA decisions when remote work is requested. The pattern is becoming clearer.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance indicates that the work location is a potential ADA accommodation. So even if remote work isn’t offered broadly, it can still qualify as a modification of workplace policy. That’s why each decision must be legally defensible.

Recent examples of when employees won their cases:

• Annie F. v. Mayorkas (2023): Remote work was reasonable where documentation showed most duties could be done remotely and performance remained strong during prior remote work.
• Complainant v. Azar (2020): Remote work was reasonable because the image analyst’s duties (tumor measurements) could be fully performed offsite.

Recent examples of when employers won their cases:

Some other examples:

• Stanley v. Phelon (2024): A college temporarily allowed remote work during the pandemic but a year later, it required employees to return on-site. A maintenance and labor supervisor asked to continue working from home, but the employer showed that on-site presence was essential to the role. The employer documented that duties shifted during the shutdown and resumed once the college reopened.
• Hollis V. v. Mayorkas (2023): Denying full time remote work was not a violation because essential duties involved classified information that could not leave the workplace.
• Yolanda P. v. McDonough (2022): Remote work was not required because key duties (customer service, patient documents, direct support) had to be performed onsite.

The key takeaway: Employers can defend their decision when they show that onsite presence was truly essential and back that up with clear job descriptions, individual reviews and strong documentation.

As return-to office mandates accelerate, telework related ADA accommodation requests are rising right alongside them. HR teams are managing more volume and more nuance, often under greater scrutiny.

Organizations that rely on clear processes, current job descriptions and strong documentation are best positioned to respond with confidence. When decisions are made case by case and explained clearly, HR can support employees and protect the business.