Temporary does not mean permanent
One clarification in the guidance is that approving a telework accommodation temporarily does not obligate you to make it permanent.
Employers can and should reassess accommodations as circumstances change. If an employee's condition improves, if operational needs shift, or if an effective in-office alternative becomes available, a previously granted telework accommodation can be modified or replaced. What employers cannot do is simply revoke a telework accommodation without going through a proper, individualized process to determine whether an alternative exists.
This distinction matters right now. Many organizations approved telework arrangements during and after the pandemic that were never intended to be indefinite. The EEOC's guidance affirms that reassessment is not only permissible but also appropriate. The key is doing it correctly.
Individualized assessment is non-negotiable
The guidance is clear on this point: blanket rescissions of telework accommodations are not legally justifiable. Each situation must be assessed based on its individual facts. When reviewing a telework accommodation — whether due to a return-to-office (RTO) initiative, operational change, or review of existing arrangements — employers should consider:
- The nature and extent of the employee's disability
- The essential functions of the specific role
- Whether effective alternative accommodations are available (such as assistive technology, modified schedules, ergonomic adjustments, private workspaces, and others)
If telework is the only effective accommodation for a particular employee, it must be maintained. If another accommodation is equally effective, telework can be adjusted or rescinded only after that assessment has been made and documented and after the employer has engaged in the interactive process with the employee.
We discussed the interactive process and its requirements in detail in our earlier post, Compliance tips for managing remote work and return-to-office transitions. If you haven't read it, it serves as a helpful companion to this guidance.
A few common scenarios worth knowing
The joint guidance directly addresses several common situations HR professionals face:
An employee refuses to return to work after their telework accommodation is withdrawn.
If the employer has completed an individualized assessment, provided a suitable alternative, and engaged in the interactive process, the employer may hold the employee accountable for an unexcused absence. The employee should be clearly informed of the possible consequences before that decision is made.
An employee requests telework due to workplace anxiety or other mental health symptoms.
Employers are not required to eliminate all anxiety-related symptoms. The obligation is to participate in the interactive process, understand how the symptoms impact the employee's ability to work, and explore whether accommodations, which may or may not include telework, can effectively address those impacts.
An employee claims that their commute is a hardship.
Difficulty with commuting alone does not justify a telework accommodation. While flexible scheduling might help with commute-related issues, telework is not generally mandated solely to ease a difficult commute.
An employee has a condition with periodic flare-ups.
Situational telework can be a reasonable option for temporary episodes. However, leave may also be a suitable alternative for managing intermittent flare-ups. Employers should consider both options — taking into account operational needs and the specific nature of the employee's condition — when deciding on the best approach.
