Allowing remote work might weaken an undue hardship claim
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers don’t have to provide an accommodation that poses an undue hardship on the company. Employers must, however, be able to prove that providing an accommodation, such as allowing remote work, is an undue hardship.
Otherwise, if they’ve had employees working remotely with no major issues in the past, employers might not be able to show that doing so now is an undue hardship.
An employer recently learned this, but it did so through a court ruling.
The story
Melissa, a clerk, was in remission from breast cancer, but she was still medically vulnerable. Because of this, when the pandemic hit, her employer allowed her to work her full-time job remotely. During that time, Melissa didn’t perform the parts of her job that required her to be on-site.
Two years later, as the pandemic waned, Melissa asked to continue working remotely as an ADA accommodation, but her employer refused.
Melissa then asked if she could work remotely three days per week, but her employer rejected that request, too.
Her employer said that the requested accommodations would pose an undue hardship.
Melissa eventually resigned. She sued her former employer for failing to accommodate her, in violation of the ADA.
The courtroom scene
In court, the employer argued that Melissa’s in-person job functions were essential and that allowing her to work remotely would pose an undue hardship.
Despite having a list of tasks that required an on-site presence, the court found that there was a question regarding whether remote work was reasonable and whether it posed an undue hardship.
Despite her physical absence from the workplace for two years, Melissa still received the highest overall performance ratings. Her supervisor also thought that her working remotely wouldn’t harm operations.
The court looked at all this and thought that, perhaps, the on-site tasks were marginal rather than essential. Allowing the case to proceed, the court held that, since she successfully worked remotely for two years, allowing Melissa to continue to do so might not pose an undue hardship. That would be up to a jury to decide.
What can employers learn from this case?
The employer’s quick response in denying Melissa’s requests didn’t help its argument. When Melissa asked to work from home three days per week, the employer’s ADA coordinator said the request was “not an ADA matter.” The court, however, said that it was.
Employers need to look at each situation individually, considering their ADA obligations on a case-by-case basis. Making this determination includes the interactive process (i.e., a thorough conversation with the employee requesting the accommodation).
Past employment practices, such as allowing remote work and having it be successful, could undermine an employer’s argument that allowing it to continue is an undue hardship.
Smith v. District of Columbia, DC District Court, No. 23-cv-00018, August 13, 2025.
Key to remember: If working from home was reasonable and effective in the past, employers might have a tough time changing their tune and now try to say it is an undue hardship.

















































