EEOC: In the Post-COVID-19 Era, Remote Work Not Automatically a Reasonable Accommodation

14 September 2020 Blog
Authors: Sara P. Madavo
Published To: Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

On September 8, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance stating that businesses will not be required to automatically allow remote work as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as the threat of COVID-19 dissipates. 

Under Title I of the ADA, employers must provide qualified employees with disabilities with reasonable accommodations to do their jobs, except when such accommodation would cause an undue hardship.  An adjustment that eliminates an essential function or fundamental duty of a position is not considered a reasonable accommodation. 

When COVID-19 forced businesses to shift to remote operations, many employers were anxious that temporarily eliminating essential functions of certain employees’ jobs during the remote work period might make it impossible to demand full performance of their duties once the remote work period ended.  The EEOC addressed this exact issue and said, “The fact that an employer temporarily excused performance of one or more essential functions when it closed the workplace and enabled employees to telework for the purpose of keeping them safe from COVID-19, or otherwise chose to permit telework, does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship.”  The EEOC went on to say that whether or not remote work is a reasonable accommodation remains a fact-specific determination and the usual ADA rules still apply. 

While this new guidance suggests that the pre-COVID-19 standards regarding reasonable accommodations continue to apply to teleworking, employers should keep in mind that the EEOC issued further guidance that suggests a worker’s ability to work remotely during COVID-19 may be relevant in situations where an employee’s request for remote work was denied prior to COVID-19.  The commission said, “In this situation, for example, the period of providing telework because of the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as a trial period that showed whether or not this employee with a disability could satisfactorily perform all essential functions while working remotely, and the employer should consider any new requests in light of this information. As with all accommodation requests, the employee and the employer should engage in a flexible, cooperative interactive process going forward if this issue does arise.”

Companies in all sectors of the economy continue to be impacted by COVID-19. Foley is here to help our clients effectively address the short- and long-term impacts on their business interests, operations, and objectives. Foley provides insights and strategies across multiple industries and disciplines to deliver timely perspectives on the wide range of legal and business challenges that companies face conducting business while dealing with the impact of the coronavirus. Click here to stay up to date and ahead of the curve with our key publications addressing today’s challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities. To receive this content directly in your inbox, click here and submit the form.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services