Ask FELTG: What should an employer be aware of when revoking telework as Reasonable Accommodation?

February 17, 2026

These questions came from a reader at an agency where there’s a recent directive to limit telework as disability accommodation as much as possible.

1) When an employee’s limitations are not significant and they don’t relate to the essential job functions – do you have any suggestions to ensure we’re meeting the needs of the employee and the agency?

As explained by EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA, agencies are required to provide reasonable accommodation when an employee requires an accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job, unless providing the accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

If the employee’s limitations are not significant and do not impact his ability to perform an essential function, the employee is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. The agency can, of course, choose to work with the employee to make him more comfortable within his minor limitations (if policy permits), but this is not required by law.

2) When an employee’s limitations are significant and telework is the most effective accommodation – any suggestions to potentially expand our leadership understanding of the need to provide telework when there are no other effective accommodations that support the employee’s limitations?

This one is easy to answer from a legal perspective. The agency, and not the employee, chooses the accommodation, and if an accommodation other than telework is effective (meaning it allows the employee to perform the essential functions of the job within his medical restrictions), the agency may select that option for the employee. See, e.g., Don S. v. BOP, EEOC App. No. 0120141175 (2016); Lia M. v. GSA, EEOC App. No. 0120141035 (2016).

But, if telework is the only accommodation that will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job within his medical restrictions, the agency must grant it unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. See, e.g., Lavern B. v. HUD, EEOC Appeal No. 0720130029 (2015).

So…what about the agency that revokes an existing telework accommodation, and replaces it with a different accommodation?

Considering the history of recent case law, the Commission does not look kindly on agencies that revoke an existing telework as accommodation agreement, and replace it with a different, less-effective accommodation. See, e.g., Sandra A. v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2021002132 (Sept. 16, 2021), request for recon. denied, EEOC Req. No. 202200276 (Mar. 7, 2022); Linda A. v. Army, EEOC Req. No. 2023002848 (Sept. 18, 2023).

EEOC has also issued recent guidance that discusses the parameters of replacing telework with another effective accommodation.

Our best suggestion on convincing leadership of the wisdom of providing continued telework as accommodation: present them with EEOC case law, where agencies removed an employee’s telework accommodation and replaced it with a different, less effective accommodation. Perhaps they will be compelled by the outcomes, as these cases just about always go against the agency – and after damages and attorney fees can easily reach into the six figures.

Have a question? Ask FELTG.

Related training

This information is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Contacting FELTG does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult an attorney for legal advice.