As more employers join the trend toward in-office attendance, the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Hayes v. GStek, Inc. provides further support for employers navigating disability accommodation requests in the context of return-to-office policies. 

Remote Work Request Denied Under ADA

The case involved an IT systems administrator, Albert Hayes, who, after being required to return to in-person work post-pandemic, requested a full-time telework accommodation due to his disabled status, which included autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. GStek, a contractor for the U.S. Army, denied the request for full-time remote work, citing the Army’s determination that in-person attendance was essential for contract employees. Instead, GStek offered Hayes a partial accommodation, allowing him to work from home two to three days per week.

Hayes sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit dismissed his claims at the pleading stage, holding that Hayes had not established a prima facie case and that by allowing him to work remotely two to three days per week, GStek had provided a reasonable accommodation.

Key ADA Takeaways for Employers Managing Return-to-Office and Remote Work Requests:

• In-Person Attendance as an Essential Function:  The Fifth Circuit’s dismissal under the ADA affirms other recent developments supporting the position that regular work-site attendance may be considered an essential function of many jobs, especially when the employer’s judgment and business interests support this requirement. Temporary telework arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic do not permanently alter the essential functions of a position. As California employers are governed by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Hayes decision is not binding on California courts. However, California courts may look to federal ADA precedent when interpreting FEHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements, given the statutes’ shared purposes and similar language. As a result, the Hayes decision may offer persuasive authority for California employers facing similar accommodation disputes.
• Reasonable Accommodation Standard: Likewise, the holding follows longstanding precedent that employers are not required to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation if another reasonable accommodation is offered. In this case, GStek’s partial telework arrangement satisfied its statutory obligation, even though Hayes sought full-time remote work.
• Qualified Individual Requirement: An employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, to be considered “qualified” under the ADA. If the requested accommodation would relieve the employee of essential job functions, the employer is not obligated to provide it.
• Retaliation and Discrimination Claims: The court found no causal connection between Hayes’s accommodation request and his termination, noting that the inability to perform essential job functions defeats such claims.

Practical Guidance for Employers on ADA Compliance and Return-to-Office Policies

This holding supports the argument that employers should be able to rely on their business judgment and operational needs when determining essential job functions, including in-person attendance. When responding to accommodation requests, it is critical to engage in an interactive process and offer reasonable alternatives where possible. Employers should document each step of the interactive process, including the employee’s request, the options considered, and the rationale for the accommodation offered or denied—such records are often critical to defending against later claims. The Hayes v. GStek decision underscores that employers are not required to fundamentally alter job requirements or provide accommodations that would eliminate essential functions.

As return-to-office policies become more prevalent, this case provides further support for employers balancing employee requests for remote work with legitimate business interests. Employers are always encouraged to consult with employment counsel who can support efforts to document the rationale for essential job functions and accommodation decisions, and to ensure compliance with ADA and FEHA requirements through a consistent, well-reasoned process.