
Navigating ADA Requests In The Era Of Return-To-Office Mandates
Since companies started pushing return-to-office mandates, we've seen a significant uptick in employees submitting reasonable accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Why? Not everyone is willing or able to go back to the office, and employees are pulling the ADA into play in a completely new way. This massive shift in the use of the ADA requests started during Covid-19, when we learned that so many jobs could be done at home.
The problem: Not all requests for accommodations fall within the purview of the ADA. As such, employers are struggling to balance their employees' needs with their operational needs and legal obligations. This deluge of requests has placed a significant burden on human resource managers as they try to navigate the intricacies of the accommodations.
The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless it creates an undue hardship . The challenge is defining what's 'reasonable' in this new work environment. Before the pandemic, remote work was sometimes seen as an undue hardship. However, after it was proven possible during the pandemic, employers have to ensure their RTO plans are justifiable, clear and consistently applied. You can't tell someone they have to work in the office if five of their peers in the same job are remote.
Keep in mind that to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the employee must:
• Have a disability or impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; and
• Be qualified to perform the essential functions of the role with or without a reasonable accommodation.
The ADA guidance can be vague, making it hard to determine what constitutes an undue hardship. The EEOC notes that employers should not deny a remote work accommodation 'solely because a job involves some contact and coordination with other employees.'
In AbsenceSoft's 2025 State of Leave and Accommodations , we found that remote work made up 51% of accommodation requests and was the most requested accommodation under the ADA. The second most frequently requested accommodation was intermittent leave or reduced schedules, which accounted for 46% of requests. And, for the second year in a row, the majority of HR managers we surveyed (60%) reported an increase in requests. Of those who saw an increase, 62% saw requests rise by 21% or more.
Mental health conditions like anxiety and PTSD are among the most common reasons for remote work requests. Autoimmune disorders and mobility impairments are also coming up frequently, with employees stating that commuting poses a health risk.
However, not all requests for reasonable accommodations fall under the ADA. We're hearing from HR managers that people are asking for an accommodation because they don't have child care, which is not a disability and, therefore, not a valid request under the ADA. Do employers need to allow remote work as a reasonable accommodation?
When it comes to reasonable accommodations, employers must conduct an individualized assessment rather than applying blanket policies. Remote work may not always be feasible; employers need clear justifications for in-office requirements. It's in everybody's best interest to make an accommodation where it makes sense. But if it doesn't make sense, then it's okay to say no.
Some accommodations can be alternatives to remote work. Maybe a neurodiverse employee needs to be at home for quiet time, or maybe they just need a quieter office or noise-canceling headphones instead. The Interactive Process: Engaging In Good-Faith Discussions
The interactive process involves gathering information, evaluating alternatives and implementing accommodations. It's a back-and-forth discussion where both the employer and employee explore possible accommodations. Employers must engage in a structured, documented dialogue with employees, and training managers to properly handle accommodation requests is crucial. Simply denying a request without considering alternatives can lead to legal trouble.
When an employer gets a request, they can use the interactive process to determine whether the employee's condition rises to the level of disability under the ADA, determine why the disability might necessitate working from home and offer other types of accommodations that would allow the person to remain in the workplace. Legal Risks Of Mishandling ADA Requests
Mishandling ADA requests can lead to legal action and reputational damage for the employer. As such, employers must be cautious about rejecting remote work requests without justification. Companies that outright reject remote work requests without considering alternatives are at risk of ADA lawsuits.
We've already seen litigation where employees claim they were unfairly denied accommodations that were granted during the pandemic. One example is the EEOC v. FedEx case that is currently pending litigation. In this case, a FedEx dispatcher worked remotely from 2020 to 2023 and asked to continue after FedEx required employees to return to the office, but the request was denied.
Conversely, not all accommodation requests based on what was allowed during COVID are reasonable. There was an EEOC case ( Jordan v. Norfolk Public School board ) where a school principal requested remote work because it was allowed at the beginning of the pandemic when schools switched to virtual learning environments. The court ruled the request was an undue hardship because principals need to be physically present to perform the essential duties of their job. Best Practices For HR And Legal Teams
First, employers should proactively define job roles and expectations to avoid legal gray areas and update job descriptions to clearly state which roles are remote, hybrid or in-office. HR teams should document every step of the interactive process and provide clear reasons if a request is denied.
Employers should embrace flexibility while maintaining legal compliance. That said, consistency is key—employees in the same role should be treated equally.
Update policies and train staff on ADA accommodations to minimize risks and prevent compliance issues. Training managers to handle accommodation discussions sensitively is critical because missteps can escalate into formal complaints. Engage in the interactive process for every request and present a menu of alternative accommodation options as part of the process. And, while you're at it, document everything in case a complaint arises.
With all of the policies, processes and documentation required to maintain compliance, many businesses find it useful to utilize technology to help them keep track of everything. Housing information, like when a process was kicked off, the decision criteria for denial or approval, records of supporting medical documentation and other pertinent information within a software platform, allows for easier access and reporting. Audit trails are very important, and if you're not leveraging automation and tracking, you're going to spend a lot of time on administration instead of focusing on the negotiation process.
At the end of the day, it's about balancing business needs with fairness to employees. The business value is clear: 56% of accommodations cost zero dollars and boost retention. When handled correctly, these accommodations increase productivity, morale, and employee loyalty.
The information provided here is not legal advice and does not purport to be a substitute for advice of counsel on any specific matter. For legal advice, you should consult with an attorney concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
In-N-Out CEO airs California grievances, talks Tennessee expansion in podcast appearance
In-N-Out CEO Lynsi Snyder had harsh words for the state where her parents built a burger empire. In an appearance on the "Relatable" podcast, Snyder aired grievances with California while saying she will be moving her family to Tennessee with the opening of the company's second headquarters. "There's a lot of great things about California," Snyder said. "But raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here." Snyder also groused about the state's implementation of rules surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw state health officials shut down two restaurants in 2021 for not checking vaccine status. "You've got to do this," Snyder said of the vaccine mandate for indoor dining. "You have to have this plastic thing between us and our customers. It was really terrible, you know? And I look back, I'm like, we should have pushed even harder on that stuff. We're not policing our customers." In-N-Out adding Tennessee HQ but not leaving California In-N-Out announced in February that many of its California corporate employees will move from Irvine in Orange County to an office in the Los Angeles-area city of Baldwin Park, where the company was founded in 1948. The company had been in the Irvine office since 1994. The move to the Baldwin Park office, about 40 miles northwest of the Irvine offices and one mile from the first restaurant opened by Harry and Esther Snyder, is expected to be complete by the end of 2029. The company said that after the Irvine office's closure, corporate employees will be stationed either at the Baldwin Park office or at the Tennessee office. The Nashville-area office is on track to open in 2026, the company said at the time. Snyder downplays East Coast expansion Snyder tamped down on the possibility of a further East Coast expansion, pointing to logistical difficulties. "We're able to reach Tennessee from our Texas warehouse. We'll have a warehouse, but not do our own meat there, so we'll be able to deliver from Texas," Snyder said. The company operates 281 of its 418 locations in California but has steadily expanded in recent years. Snyder added that the bulk of the company's stores will be in California. "Florida has begged us, and we're still saying no," Snyder said. "The East Coast states, we're still saying no." USA TODAY reached out to In-N-Out for comment and did not receive a response as of Monday evening.


USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
Jerry Jones' worst NFL enemy remains Jerry Jones
Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, has an NFL nemesis hell bent on keeping him from reclaiming the glory of the 1990s. That man is Jerry Jones, de facto general manager of the Dallas Cowboys. To be clear, Jones' talent evaluation and trust in his scouts remain top notch. The Cowboys continue to generate elite homegrown talent on a semi-regular basis. Draft-n-Play Jerry Jones? That guy is an asset. But once those guys get near the end of those rookie contracts, Contract Extension Jerry Jones comes out. And while Contract Extension Jerry is great for his stars' checking accounts, it's actively hindering the roster around them. None of that is new. Jones' propensity to drag his feet early in negotiations has often led to more expensive deals down the line for players Dallas cannot afford to see leave. What could have been a five year, $262.5 million extension for Dak Prescott in 2023 (using Justin Herbert's deal as a comparison) eventually became a four year, $240 million deal in 2024, paying him $5 million more annually than any other NFL player ($231 million of that is guaranteed). CeeDee Lamb was always set to reset the wide receiver market. Doing so at the eve of the 2024 season lined him up for $34 million per year instead of around $30 million had he signed the offseason prior ($100 million of that is guaranteed). That creates salary cap bottlenecks down the line for a team that's perpetually high on star power and often low on depth. Jones' hesitation has logic behind it; he's waiting to see if a young player's production wanes before making a massive commitment. At the same time, that keeps said young player on a less expensive salary, which allows some breathing room to pay off the other massive extensions looming around the corner. However, that strategy keeps costing him money while antagonizing the players on which he relies. And Monday's comments about Micah Parsons, whose upcoming extension gets pricier each month? Fairly antagonistic! "Even if" is a bold way to address your team's desire to keep a 26-year-old with 52.5 sacks and four Pro Bowl honors in four seasons as a pro. Yet, here is Jones, quietly negging a player who has only missed four games due to injury in his career to date (a fifth game, in Week 18 vs. the Eagles in 2021, was due to COVID-19). Jones also added 'I am not the least concerned about having any dangling participles out here on a contract,' which is a folksy, homespun way of suggesting that, yep, this approach will once again cost Dallas extra money as a luxury tax for an owner/manager who lives for the escalation of contract negotiations but still seems to lose the big ones more often than he wins. Parsons, by the way, took notice. How could he not? So why is Jones waiting? He offered a couple rationalizations. The first, naturally, was the fleeting nature of mortality and rising tide of reckless drivers. The second, more sensible option was that he'd been burned before and had some regrets. And Jerry Jones, because he is Jerry Jones and you do not have to speak diplomatically when you own a superyacht, named names beyond Prescott and his nine missed games in 2024. Trevon Diggs was an All-Pro his second season in the league and a Pro Bowler the third. He signed a five year, $97 million contract to become one of the league's five highest paid cornerbacks, then missed 15 games due to injury in 2023 and six games in 2024 while providing good-not-great coverage. Steele signed a five-year, $82.5 million contract in 2023 after ascending to a starting role at right tackle, which made him the ninth-highest paid offensive tackle in the NFL. He hasn't missed a game since then, but his play hasn't lived up to the salary even though he'll only be the league's 25th-highest paid tackle in 2025. Jones paid market value for a boom-or-bust cornerback and a rising young tackle. One of them was derailed by injury and the other has struggled, but there's room for both players to revert to form (Steele is the oldest of the two and only 28 years old). Jones isn't in the hope business, however, he's looking for results. And these results align more closely with his wait-and-see philosophy than the fact Lamb was an All-Pro for the third straight season last fall. Thus, the Cowboys will likely be stuck with the privilege of paying Parsons a record-setting amount in the late stages of the 2025 preseason. A deal to beat out the $41 million in annual salary to TJ Watt -- resetting the market last offseason probably would have clocked in closer to $36 million per year -- could leave the franchise committed to something like $137 million in annual average salary to three players. That's not unmanageable, but it's a problem. Dallas has been so strapped for cap space in recent years that its top free agent additions the last few seasons have been: All the while, players like Connor McGovern, Dalton Schultz, Dorance Armstrong, Tyler Biadasz, Jourdan Lewis and Demarcus Lawrence left for cash elsewhere. That's not why the Cowboys have one playoff win since 2019, but it certainly doesn't help. Monday's comments were a refreshing display of honesty. Not about Micah Parsons, of course, but about how Jones views his roster management. The sunk cost of paying a player who might get injured or fall off far outweighs the opportunity savings of paying young, proven players what they're worth before it gets damagingly expensive. Jones is content to lose leverage and give up more in guarantees than he would have years earlier if he can find data that rewards his wait-and-see approach. That's not anything we didn't already know, but it's something else to hear Jones go out and effectively admit it. It's an approach that keeps the Cowboys from turning its stars into a constellation. And while it means guys like Prescott, Lamb and, eventually, Parsons all get truly lucrative contracts down the line, it also means they won't have the support to maximize the talent for which Jones is paying so much.

6 hours ago
What to know about Trump's Aug. 1 tariff deadline
President Donald Trump is set to slap tariffs as high as 50% on dozens of countries next week, including top trade partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan and the European Union. The levies, which are scheduled to take effect Aug. 1, would dramatically escalate U.S. tariff policy and threaten to hike prices for everyday goods ranging from coffee to shoes. Trump delayed the so-called " reciprocal tariffs" in April, vowing then to strike roughly 90 trade deals in 90 days. For his part, the president has insisted that the on-again, off-again levies make up a key part of his negotiation strategy. So far, the White House says it has reached trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Vietnam and Indonesia, as well as a preliminary accord with China. "The president and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last month when she announced the Aug. 1 deadline. Here's what to know about the approaching tariff deadline: What is Trump's Aug. 1 tariff deadline? A slew of steep, country-specific tariffs will take effect on Aug. 1 unless targeted nations reach a trade deal with the U.S. beforehand, the White House said earlier this month. Examples include a 50% tariff on Brazil, a 35% tariff on Canada, a 30% tariff on the EU and Mexico, and 25% tariffs on Japan and South Korea. Each of those countries is among the top exporters of goods to the U.S. Smaller trade partners are also set to face tariffs. Cambodia and Bangladesh, two key sources of apparel imports, will face tariffs of 36% and 35%, respectively. The tariffs resemble levies that were placed on more than 90 countries on April 2. Those reciprocal tariffs were delayed hours after they took effect, when the stock market reacted with its worst single-day performance since the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump has sent letters to leaders of dozens of countries outlining the tariff levels set to begin on Aug. 1. Could Trump delay the Aug. 1 tariff deadline? In recent months, Trump has rolled back some of his steepest tariffs, meaning delays could be possible in the case of the Aug. 1 deadline. The Trump administration appears to have stood largely behind the deadline in recent days, however. On Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick referred to Aug. 1 as a 'hard deadline.' 'The new tariff rates will come in,' Lutnick told CNBC, while also acknowledging the possibility of continued negotiations: 'Nothing stops countries from talking to us after August 1.' Speaking a day later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared to float the opportunity for an extension for some countries. When asked whether the White House could offer an extension to nations engaged in productive discussions, Bessent told CNBC, 'We'll see what the president wants to do.' Could Trump's Aug. 1 tariffs raise prices? Price hikes could hit coffee, shoes, appliances and a range of other products if additional tariffs take effect on Aug. 1, analysts previously told ABC News. Importers typically pass along a share of the tariff-related tax burden onto consumers in the form of price hikes. Tariffs put forward so far by Trump are expected to cost an average household an additional $2,400 this year, the Yale Budget Lab found earlier this month. Trump's proposed 50% tariffs on copper could raise prices for an array of goods, ranging from home fixtures to electric vehicles, analysts previously said. Where do tariffs stand now? Trump has dialed back some of his steepest tariffs in recent weeks, while another batch of tariffs remains in legal limbo following a pair of federal court rulings in May, though the levies remain in place for now. A trade agreement last month between the U.S. and China slashed tit-for-tat tariffs between the world's two largest economies. Still, an across-the-board 10% tariff applies to nearly all U.S. imports, except for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and some other items. Trump has also placed a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum. Goods from Mexico and Canada face tariffs of 25%, though the measure excludes products covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. In May, Trump vowed to double steel and aluminum tariffs. Tariffs still apply to autos and car parts.