Quick Hits

• On August 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision highlighting the complexities of ADA compliance in remote work accommodations, emphasizing the need for employers to substantiate claims of essential job functions and undue hardship.
• The court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion, finding factual disputes regarding the essential nature of in-person job functions and whether the requested remote work accommodation imposed an undue hardship.
• This decision underscores the importance of individualized assessments, clear documentation, and open communication when handling ADA accommodation requests, particularly those involving remote work.

Factual Background

The case arose from a former employee’s claim that her employer failed to accommodate her request for full-time remote work following her treatment for breast cancer. The claimant worked as a court clerk for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. She was allowed to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 through April 2022 due to heightened health risks associated with COVID-19.

As pandemic restrictions eased, the employee requested to continue full-time remote work as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The employer denied this request, as well as a subsequent accommodation request to limit her in-person workdays, citing undue hardship and the essential nature of on-site duties. The employee returned to work on a rotational schedule (one week fully in-office, one week fully remote) in April 2022.

After a time working on a rotational schedule, the employee re-requested a fully remote work accommodation for a limited period of time. The employer (in a tersely worded email) rejected this request because it would cause an undue burden (though no reasoning to support that conclusion was provided at the time or during the litigation proceedings). As a result, the employee ultimately resigned and filed an action in federal court asserting that the employer violated the ADA when it failed to accommodate her.

Key Issues

The court’s analysis focused on whether the employee could perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation, and whether the requested accommodation imposed an undue hardship on the employer.

The employer argued that certain public-facing duties of the court clerk position could only be performed in person, and that the employee’s absence would create operational difficulties. Indeed, the employer noted that, particularly given staffing shortages and increased courthouse activity post-pandemic, the employee’s need for full-time remote work would pose an undue hardship. The employer also pointed to written job descriptions and vacancy rates to support its position that in-person work was an essential function of the position.

On the other hand, the employee presented evidence that she had performed at a high level while working remotely for two years. She demonstrated that she received exemplary performance reviews (in fact, her performance evaluations had the highest ratings for any employee in that job title) and strong support from her direct supervisors. In support of her argument, the employee pointed to a statement by the chief clerk supervising the employee’s work that the employee’s remote work had “enhanced” operations and did not present a hardship (primarily because the employee’s work focused on training of other employees throughout the clerk’s office and because she was not focused on client-facing work). The employee also highlighted the continued use of a rotational schedule under which she and her clerk’s office colleagues alternated between remote and on-site work; thus, the employee argued that this demonstrated that in-person work is not an essential function of her position.

Court’s Ruling

Oftentimes, employers facing a failure to accommodate claim can prevail on summary judgment by demonstrating that the accommodation was not reasonable, involved elimination of essential job duties, or posed an undue hardship. Not so in this case. Here, the court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion and found factual issues that a jury must resolve. Specifically, the court concluded that there was a dispute about both the essential nature of the in-person job functions and whether the requested accommodation constituted an undue hardship. The court found that the employer was unable to establish its position as a matter of law.

In this regard, the court noted several key considerations.

• The employee’s successful remote performance (indeed, the employee had the highest performance rating of any employee in her job title) and supervisor support could allow a reasonable jury to conclude that on-site duties were marginal rather than essential. (In this regard, the court reminded the parties that “the ‘work experience of past incumbents in the job’” is relevant, as is “‘[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.’”)
• The rotational schedule of similar clerk’s office employees, which permitted partial remote work for all similarly situated clerks, undermined the employer’s assertion that in-person presence was indispensable and consistently necessary. Relatedly, the court concluded that “[a]lthough it required Deputy Clerks to be on-site every other week, the fact that they could perform some of their duties remotely half the time arguably diminishes the essential nature of the in-person job elements.”
• The employer failed to provide a sufficient explanation for rejecting the employee’s narrowed accommodation request (three days per on-site week and two days per week remote) or to demonstrate that such an arrangement would impose an undue hardship. 

Implications

This decision underscores the fact-intensive nature of ADA accommodation disputes, particularly regarding remote work. Employers may want to prepare to substantiate claims that certain job functions are essential and that requested accommodations (such as working from home) would impose undue hardship. These factors are particularly salient and persuasive where remote work has been successfully performed in the past. The court’s ruling also highlights the importance of individualized assessments and clear documentation when responding to accommodation requests.

Tips for Employers

Based on the court’s determination, employers may want to consider the following steps when handling reasonable accommodation requests, particularly those involving remote work:

• conducting an individualized assessment of each accommodation request, considering the employee’s specific circumstances and job duties;
• clearly identifying and documenting which job functions are considered essential, and being prepared to provide evidence supporting these determinations (such as job descriptions, actual work experience, and supervisor input);
• evaluating whether the requested accommodation would truly impose an undue hardship and, if such a hardship exists, documenting the specific reasons and evidence supporting any such determination (note that doing this task at the time of the determination is very important, and ensures that contemporaneous records support the employer’s decision);
• consider whether the employee has been provided the requested (or similar) accommodation in the past, how that impacted the employee’s performance of essential job duties and overall work performance, and whether continuing that accommodation remains reasonable or has (somehow) become an undue burden;
• consider the employee’s past performance in remote or alternative work arrangements as relevant evidence regarding the feasibility of continued accommodation;
• ensuring that any denial of an accommodation request, including narrowed or modified proposals, is accompanied by a clear and specific explanation;
• maintaining open communication with employees throughout the interactive process, and exploring alternative accommodations where possible; and
• keeping thorough records of all steps taken, communications, and the rationale for decisions regarding accommodation requests.

By following these steps, employers can better position themselves to comply with the ADA and defend their decisions if challenged.