The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Remote Work Under the ADA

By Geoffrey A. Lindley

The COVID pandemic did not change the reality that in-person work is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs.

Hayes v. GSTEK, Inc., 175 F.4th 603, 608 (5th Cir. 2026).

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Additionally, employers are required to engage in an interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability to determine whether the employer can provide a reasonable accommodation. Brumley v. UPS, 909 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2018). A qualified individual under the ADA is defined as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 201 (6th Cir. 2010).

Failure by an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation may constitute disability discrimination barred by the ADA. Cash v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 548 F. App'x 330, 334 (6th Cir. 2013).

But What is An Essential Job Function?

“The term ‘essential functions’ means ‘the fundamental job duties’ of a position.” Johnson v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist., 443 Fed. App’x 974, 985 (6th Cir. 2011). “Courts consider ‘written job description[s]’ and the ‘employer’s judgment’ in ascertaining these ‘essential functions.’” Denczak v. Ford Motor Co., 215 Fed. App’x 442, 444 (6th Cir. 2007) (alterations in original). While the ADA requires that employers make reasonable accommodations, it does not require employers to remove the essential functions of an employee’s job in making such accommodations. EEOC v. LHC Grp., Inc., 773 F.3d 688, 698 (5th Cir. 2014).

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Remote Work

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts were already starting to grapple with whether remote work may be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. See Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 883 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2018); see also EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015). And the decisions in those cases often depended on whether in-person work was an essential job function.

However, the COVID-19 forced most employers to allow much of their workforce to work from home for a lengthy period of time. Therefore, some employees and their attorneys have taken the position that if a job could be done remotely for a lengthy period of time during the pandemic, then in-person attendance cannot be an essential job function of that job as a matter of law.

Does COVID-Era Remote Work Remove In-Person Attendance as an Essential Job Function?

Thankfully for employers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed this question directly, and in doing so provided helpful guidance.

Return to Work Leads to Mental Disability

In Hayes v. GSTEK, Inc., Albert Hayes began work for GC&E in 2021 as an IT systems administrator through GC&E’s contract with the United States Army. Id. at 605. Because of the COVID pandemic, GC&E permitted Hayes to temporarily work remotely. Id. at 606. Later that year, the Army replaced GC&E with GStek, and Hayes employment transferred to GStek, though his job remained the same. Id.

In February 2022, the Army and GStek required Hayes to return to in-person work as they were transitioning away from remote work. Id. at 606. However, upon his return to the office, Hayes became overstimulated and was diagnosed with autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder in May 2022. Id. And in August 2022, Hayes became suicidal and required inpatient psychiatric care. Id.

In October 2022, Hayes submitted paperwork from his healthcare provider along with a request that GStek allow him to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation. Id. at 606. While GStek was initially considering the request, the Army, whose contract with GStek required Army approval for such requests, determined that it "would not be in the best interest of the organization to allow full-time teleworking." Id. Therefore, GStek tried to appease both Hayes and the Army by allowing Hayes to work remotely two to three days per week, an accommodation that remained in place from December 2022 through mid-January 2023. Id. Unfortunately, Hayes had a “mental breakdown” at work on January 16, 2023. Id. Hayes again requested full-time remote work, but GStek declined because of its Army contract. Id. GStek then terminated Hayes’ employment for attendance and other issues. Id.

Failure to Provide Full-Time Remote Work Leads to Lawsuit

Thereafter, Hayes sued GStek for disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA. Id. at 607. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed Hayes suit, and he appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Id.

Hayes argued that in-person attendance was not an essential function of his job as proven by his ability to do his job while working remotely full time during COVID, and the fact that GStek would not provide him with the full-time remote work accommodation that he requested violated the ADA. Id. at 607-09. In analyzing Hayes’ argument, the court considered the following factors:

• GStek’s judgment that Hayes’ on-site presence was necessary;
• GStek’s contractual requirements with the Army and the Army’s determination that the position could not be done remotely full time;
• GStek’s legitimate business interest in honoring the Army’s in-person work requirements in order to maintain its Army contract;
• the difficulty for employers in supervising remote work;
• the fact that none of Hayes’ co-workers received full-time remote work accommodations; and
• GStek’s concern that permitting one employee to work remotely full time could “open the floodgates” to similar requests which could damage the company’s contractual relationship with the Army.

Id. at 608-09.

COVID-Era Remote Work Does not Transform a Job into a Remote Position

Upon reviewing the above factors, the court noted that it is not surprising that in-person attendance is an essential function of Hayes’ job. Id. at 608. "[T]here is general consensus among courts, including ours, that regular work-site attendance is an essential function of most jobs." Id. (quoting  Credeur v. La. Through Off. Of Att’y Gen., 860 F.3d 785, 793 (5th Cir. 2017)).

Moreover, the court noted:

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 protecting their safety 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.

Id. (citing Ray v. Columbia Brazoria Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 24-20227, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10179 (5th Cir. 2025)).

Therefore, because in-person attendance was an essential function of Hayes’ job and because he admitted that he “needed to work from home” in order to do his job, Hayes was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. Id. at 609. Additionally, GStek did provide Hayes with a reasonable accommodation when it let him work remotely two to three days per week. And the ADA does not require an employer to grant an employee’s requested accommodation. Id. Thus, the court held that Hayes’ discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims must fail. Id. Further, because he was not a qualified individual under the ADA, his retaliation claim also must be dismissed as his request for full-time remote work, a doomed request because it eliminated the essential job function of in-person attendance, cannot be the basis of a retaliation claim. Id. at 610.

Employer Takeaways

1. COVID-era remote work does not mandate future remote work. According to the court in Hayes, an employer who granted remote work to employees during the COVID pandemic was not making permanent changes to essential job functions but was instead responding to extraordinary circumstances. When employers grant temporary remote work during such situations, they should document clearly why they are granting remote work and when and why they are returning to in-person work.
2. Employees do not get the final say on reasonable accommodations. The ADA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities that will allow those employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs. One problem with Hayes’ lawsuit was that his preferred accommodation, full-time remote work, did not allow him to perform the essential job functions but actually negated one – in-person work. On the other hand, GStek’s accommodation of allowing Hayes to work remotely two to three days per week would have allowed him to do his job while still working in-person.
3. Employers and sometimes Employer clients determine the essential functions of a job. An employer determines what a job is and what its essential functions are, and these should be outlined in a written job description that actually documents what the employee does. Additionally, if an employer is operating under the policies of a client, those policies can reinforce an employer’s position regarding essential job functions.
4. Engaging in the interactive process is crucial. Had all of the facts of the Hayes case been the same except that GStek did not communicate with Hayes concerning his condition and potential accommodations, then this case would have likely turned out differently. The ADA requires employers to interact with employees who claim a disability in order to determine whether any reasonable accommodation exists, and employers should document all such communication.
5. Not all situations or courts are the same. In Hayes, the Fifth Circuit (which includes Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) has staked out a pretty clear position on remote work in light of COVID, and that position is binding in the Fifth Circuit. However, other United States district courts and circuit courts of appeals could take a different position, especially if presented with different facts. Therefore, employers should analyze each situation on its own merits while considering all factors discussed herein when determining whether remote work is a reasonable accommodation.