Remote Work Isn't Always a Reasonable Accommodation 

By Kelly A. Hayden, JD, Chief Legal Counsel
Published July 14, 2026

Albert Hayes worked as an IT systems administrator for GStek, a contractor supporting the U.S. Army at Fort Polk, LA. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked remotely under the Army’s temporary telework policies. When those policies ended and employees were required to return to the office, Hayes experienced difficulties and was later diagnosed with autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. 

After a psychiatric hospitalization, Hayes requested a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): full-time telework. Although his manager believed Hayes could perform the job remotely, the Army controlled telework policies for contractor employees and denied the request. GStek’s manager also expressed concern that granting this request could lead to a “flood” of similar requests from other employees.

As a compromise, GStek allowed Hayes to work from home two to three days per week from December 2022 to January 2023. In January 2023, Hayes suffered a mental breakdown. After missing work, he informed GStek that his doctor recommended medical leave and later stated that he needed full-time telework. Citing attendance concerns and other issues, GStek terminated his employment. 

Hayes sued GStek under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to provide an accommodation, disability discrimination, and retaliation. After losing at the district court level, he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court, concluding that Hayes was not a qualified individual under the ADA because he could not perform an essential job function – regular, in-person attendance. The court relied heavily on several key factors, including: 

• The Army determination that full-time telework was not in its best interests. 
• GStek also considered on-site attendance necessary.
  
• Employees in similar positions worked on site.
• Regular workplace attendance is generally considered an essential function for most jobs. 

The court also rejected Hayes's argument that successful telework during COVID meant remote work was acceptable, emphasizing that temporary pandemic accommodations do not permanently alter a job's essential functions. 

The court also noted that GStek did, in fact, provide a reasonable accommodation by allowing Hayes to work remotely two to three days per week. While the ADA requires reasonable accommodation, it does not require the employer to grant the employee's preferred accommodation. Even if full-time telework was denied, GStek fulfilled its obligation under the ADA by offering a partial telework arrangement. Hayes's dissatisfaction with that arrangement did not create ADA liability. 

For the same reason, Hayes’s disability discrimination claim failed. Because he could not perform an essential function of the job (in-person attendance), he was not considered a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. Without qualification for the position, the claim could not proceed. 

The court also rejected Hayes’s retaliation claim. Hayes argued that GStek terminated him because he requested an accommodation, but the court rejected this argument on two grounds. First, nearly three months passed between his accommodation request and termination, and the court noted that a three-month gap, by itself, was generally too long to establish causation. Second, and more importantly, because Hayes could not perform an essential job function and GStek was not required to provide the accommodation he requested, his retaliation claim could not succeed. (Hayes v. GStek, Inc., Case No. 30392, Fifth Circuit, May 8, 2026).

Employer Takeaways
When evaluating telework requests as a reasonable accommodation, identify and document the essential functions of the position before determining whether remote work is feasible. Engage in the interactive process, carefully document your analysis and consider alternative accommodations that may allow the employee to perform the essential duties of the job. As this case demonstrates, offering a reasonable alternative - even if it is not the employee's preferred solution - may satisfy your obligations under the ADA.

HR Source members with questions about accommodation requests can contact the HR Hotline Online or call 800-448-4584 to speak with a member of our team.