At this point, employers’ obligation to make reasonable accommodations for certain employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is well-established. On May 8, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in Hayes v. GStek, Inc., No. 25-30392 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026) that reinforces a key principle under the ADA: employers are often not required to offer remote work as a reasonable accommodation, particularly where in-person attendance is an essential function of the job.

The case involved an IT systems administrator employed by a federal contractor. Like many employees, he worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. When the employer transitioned back to in-person operations in early 2022, the employee returned to the worksite. Later that year, following diagnoses that included autism and anxiety-related conditions, he requested full-time telework as an accommodation. The employer declined but offered a hybrid arrangement, permitting remote work several days per week. The employee rejected that proposal and was eventually terminated for attendance issues.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the employee’s claims, focusing on whether he qualified for ADA protection in the first instance. The court held that he did not, because he could not perform an essential job function — regular in-person attendance. That conclusion proved dispositive, as the ADA protects only individuals who can perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

In reaching its decision, the court made several notable points that carry practical significance for employers. First, it rejected the argument that pandemic-era telework permanently altered the nature of the job. Temporary flexibility during COVID-19, the court explained, does not redefine essential functions going forward.

Second, the court reinforced that employers retain discretion to define essential functions, particularly where supported by operational needs or contractual obligations. In this case, the employer’s requirement that the role be performed on-site was tied to the expectations of its federal client, further supporting the conclusion that physical presence was essential.

Third, the decision highlights an important limitation on telework as an accommodation. Remote work is not reasonable where it undermines supervision, coordination, or other core job requirements. The court reiterated the general presumption that in-person attendance remains essential for most roles.

The employer’s handling of the accommodation request also played a role. While it denied full-time telework, it offered a partial telework arrangement. The court viewed this as sufficient engagement in the interactive process and confirmation that employers are not obligated to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation but only a reasonable one.

Finally, the ruling disposed of related retaliation claims, emphasizing that a failure to meet the “qualified individual” threshold undermines those claims as well. Without the ability to perform essential functions, the employee could not establish the necessary causal link between his accommodation request and adverse action.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision provides a clear roadmap for employers navigating telework accommodation requests. Employers should ensure that job descriptions accurately reflect essential functions, especially any in-person requirements, and consistently document the business reasons supporting those requirements.

Equally important, employers should continue to engage in a structured, interactive process and consider alternative accommodations where feasible. Offers of hybrid or modified arrangements, even if not accepted, can strengthen an employer’s position in subsequent litigation.

What to Do Now

Employers should take this opportunity to review job descriptions, revisit return-to-work policies, and confirm that managers understand how to evaluate accommodation requests in line with current legal standards. If your organization is relying on in-person attendance as an essential job function, or facing ongoing telework accommodation requests, now is the time to ensure your approach is well-documented, consistent, and defensible under the Fifth Circuit’s latest guidance.