In March 2020, many companies implemented work-from-home (WFH) policies in response to the global pandemic, aiming to keep employees safe while maintaining productivity. Soon after Federal and local governments followed suit. Now, as the threat of widespread contamination has diminished, employers are beginning to amend their WFH policies which present a host of challenges, which include having staff return to their respective offices.

The Good and the Bad

While WFH created benefits such as lower overhead costs, higher employee satisfaction, and increased productivity, it has also come with trade-offs. The lack of centralized workspace makes face-to-face collaboration more difficult, which can weaken company culture and reduce opportunities for informal learning and mentorship. The days of spontaneous office conversations and team lunches are becoming a thing of the past. These challenges, along with evolving COVID-19 protocols, are prompting employers to revisit their remote work strategies.

Changes in Health Guidelines

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) no longer recommends a minimum five-day isolation period for individuals exposed to or infected with COVID-19. The current guidance advises staying home and away from others until at least 24 hours after symptoms and fever have subsided without the use of fever-reducing medication. Enhanced precautions remain important for individuals with weakened immune systems or those aged 65 and older. Vaccination is still recommended. These changes have influenced employers considering bringing employees back to the workplace.

The Approach – Getting Back to the Office

Bringing employees back to brick-and-mortar offices requires a well-crafted return-to-work plan. Employers should clearly communicate the reasons for returning, such as strengthening office culture, reestablishing collaboration, or improving client services. A phased approach is suggested to ease the transition, starting with a few in-office days per week. Hybrid models, requiring a set number of in-office days, are another option. Also helpful is involving employees in the planning process can foster buy-in which will make employees feel as though they are part of the process. It also gives employers valuable insight into employee perspectives, which they might otherwise not possess.

Federal Workers – President Trump’s Executive Order

The return-to-work movement has also extended to federal employees. The Trump Administration issued an executive order mandating a return to in-person work. This order is currently the only federal mandate requiring employees to return to the office. Agencies were given until 5 p.m. EST on Friday, January 24, 2025, to implement the necessary steps. Under the order, eligible employees must work full-time at their duty station unless excused due to disability, medical condition, or other compelling reasons certified by the agency head and the employee’s supervisor. Employees who fail to report without an acceptable reason may be considered absent without leave (AWOL) and subject to removal from their jobs.

Legal Considerations – Injury, Illness, or Family Leave

As employers implement return-to-work plans, several legal considerations must be addressed to ensure compliance and fairness. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) prohibits employers from shortening leave granted under the law, which entitles eligible employees at companies with 50 or more workers  up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for serious health conditions or to care for a spouse, child, or parent. Additionally, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with known disabilities. If an employee has been effectively working remotely due to a disability, the employer must assess whether returning to the office is essential or if remote work can continue as a reasonable accommodation. The workplace must also be accessible and equipped to support the employee’s needs. Furthermore, employers must be cautious to avoid any return-to-work policies that could be perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory, particularly if they disproportionately affect protected groups. Failure to consider these legal obligations could expose employers to claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, or noncompliance with federal and state labor laws.