Must You Approve Remote Work? EEOC’s Latest Signals for Private Employers

On February 11, 2026, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released new guidance about telework as a disability accommodation. The guidance is written for federal agencies. But the legal standards are largely the same ones that apply to private employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

For private companies, this matters. It signals how regulators may evaluate remote work requests from employees with disabilities—especially as many employers continue pushing return-to-office (RTO) policies.

For guidance on return-to-office policies, telework accommodation obligations, or ADA compliance strategies, please contact the ILS legal team at contact@consultils.com. We assist employers in structuring compliant processes and minimizing litigation risk.

What the FAQ Really Says

The main takeaway is simple: A return-to-office (RTO) policy does not override disability accommodation laws. Employers should not automatically cancel existing telework accommodations. At the same time, telework is not automatically required. It must meet legal standards.

Key Points Employers Should Understand

1. Telework Has Different Forms

“Telework” generally means work performed away from the employer’s worksite. It can include:

• Full-time remote work

• Recurring telework (e.g., set days per week)

• Situational or temporary telework (e.g., during medical recovery)

2. Telework Is Not Automatically a Reasonable Accommodation

Telework qualifies as a reasonable accommodation only if it:

• Allows the employee to perform essential job functions, or

• Allows equal access to benefits and privileges of employment

Telework based mainly on convenience or personal preference is not required. Even if telework works, employers may choose among effective accommodations. Employees are not entitled to their preferred arrangement indefinitely.

3. Employers May Reevaluate Prior Telework Arrangements

Previously granted telework can be reviewed, especially if there are material changes, such as:

• Changes in job duties

• Changes in operational needs

• Changes in the employee’s medical condition

• Changes in governing policies

If an individualized assessment shows telework is no longer necessary, the employer may:

• Reduce it

• Replace it

• Provide an effective in-office alternative

Possible alternatives include:

• Modified schedules

• Assistive equipment

• Environmental adjustments

• Restructuring marginal (non-essential) duties

  
  

In some cases, reevaluation may show that no accommodation is currently required, including situations where the prior arrangement exceeded legal requirements.

4. The Process Must Be Evidence-Based

The FAQ stresses a structured, documented process. Employers may:

• Request sufficient medical documentation

• Explore in-office solutions

• Consider mitigating measures

However, employers may not require an employee to undergo medical treatment as a condition of receiving accommodation.

5. Pandemic Telework Does Not Permanently Redefine “Essential Functions”

Temporary remote arrangements during COVID do not automatically change what counts as essential job duties.

Employers may restore essential in-office duties if based on current operational realities. If an employer reasonably believes an in-office option will work, a trial period may be appropriate. If it fails, the employer should reassess.

An employee who refuses to comply with a lawful, properly implemented RTO policy may face discipline. Filing an administrative complaint does not entitle the employee to continue teleworking while the complaint is pending.

RTO policies are allowed. Telework is not automatically required. But decisions must be individualized, documented, and legally grounded. The key is not whether remote work is “good” or “bad.” The key is whether your process can withstand scrutiny.

Implications for Private-Sector Employers

The key point is this: A companywide return-to-office (RTO) policy does not eliminate ADA obligations.

Employers must still conduct individualized assessments. The real legal question is not whether telework is helpful — it is whether telework is legally required because no effective alternative exists.

1. Avoid Blanket Rules

Do not assume that a general RTO policy automatically ends all telework accommodations, Instead:

• Reassess each accommodation individually

• Document the analysis

• Focus on whether telework remains necessary for essential job functions

2. Clarify and Update Job Descriptions

Well-drafted job descriptions matter. Employers should:

• Clearly define essential functions

• Identify where in-person collaboration, supervision, or teamwork is operationally important

• Ensure documentation reflects real business needs

Clear business justification strengthens defensibility.

3. Base Decisions on Objective Evidence

Accommodation decisions should:

• Be grounded in operational realities

• Be supported by appropriate medical documentation when necessary

• Avoid assumptions or generalized statements

4. Watch for Retaliation Risk

Accommodation discussions should be handled:

• Professionally

• Consistently

• Separately from performance management

Managers should avoid comments suggesting hostility toward telework or disability-related requests. A structured, well-documented interactive process remains the strongest protection against discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claims.

For guidance on return-to-office policies, telework accommodation obligations, or ADA compliance strategies, please contact the ILS legal team at contact@consultils.com. We assist employers in structuring compliant processes and minimizing litigation risk.

Disclaimer: The materials provided on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here. Please consult with your own legal counsel regarding your specific situation and legal questions.

---

As Managing Partner at ILS, Richard Liu ranks among the leading U.S. attorneys in corporate, employment, and regulatory law. He is known for crafting legal strategies aligned with clients’ business objectives and advising Fortune 500 companies, startups, and executives on corporate transactions, financing, privacy, and employment matters across the technology, healthcare, and financial sectors.

Before founding ILS, Richard practiced at top defense firms, where he developed a reputation for anticipating risks and designing strategies that balance protection with growth. He has secured favorable outcomes in contract and intellectual property disputes, represented clients in state and federal courts, and is recognized for combining large-firm expertise with boutique-firm agility. Richard is also a frequent speaker at industry and legal conferences.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949

Siyun specializes in consumer protection and product liability, with a strong record in defeating dispositive motions, managing complex discovery, and conducting depositions in state and federal courts. She represents consumers in high-stakes product liability and warranty cases against major automakers, bringing deep experience with warranty laws, the UCC, the CLRA, and fraud statutes.

She oversees all phases of litigation—from case strategy to trial preparation—executing discovery plans, handling motion practice, and managing negotiations and depositions. Siyun’s detail-oriented, strategic approach delivers strong advocacy and practical results for clients navigating consumer disputes.

Email:  contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949