Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation After the EEOC’s New Guidance: What Actually Changes for Employers?

On February 11, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued new guidance addressing telework accommodations in the federal sector. Although formally directed at federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act, the FAQs apply ADA standards and rely on established federal case law. For private employers navigating return‑to‑office policies, the guidance applies pre- and post-COVID case law to provide in one place comprehensive guidance on how to navigate return-to-office protocols while complying with obligations under the ADA. They clarify how existing telework accommodations apply in the return-to-office context, particularly where employers are reassessing pandemic‑era flexibility and responding to renewed requests for remote work.

Effectiveness, Not Preference, Remains the Governing Standard

The central takeaway from the guidance is one employers already know but should continue to emphasize: Telework is required only if it is effective. The EEOC reiterates telework is required only if it enables: (1) participation in the application process; (2) performance of essential functions; or (3) equal access to benefits and privileges of employment. Telework requested primarily for convenience, general symptom mitigation, or quality‑of‑life reasons—without a nexus to functional job limitations—does not meet that standard.

The EEOC reinforces employees are not entitled to the accommodation of their choice, only one that effectively enables performance. This distinction carries particular weight when employees make in-office-anxiety-based requests, generalized quality of life arguments, or claims framed around symptom management without any connection to functional job limitations. 

Reevaluation Is Part of the Interactive Process 

The EEOC’s guidance also underscores reasonable accommodation is not a one-time determination. Reevaluation and modification are inherent features of the interactive process. Employers may revisit previously granted telework arrangements when circumstances change, including shifts in operational needs, job duties, or the employee’s condition.

Importantly, the EEOC makes clear employers are not indefinitely bound by accommodations they voluntarily provided during materially different circumstances. Temporary flexibility does not necessarily result in a permanent accommodation. Likewise, an employer that previously accepted limited or informal medical documentation in support of an accommodation does not forfeit its ability to request additional medical documentation under some circumstances, seek clarification or make a new determination based on a more complete record. This is particularly the case where circumstances change, and the EEOC permits employers to “situationally reevaluate [accommodations] in response to material changes, such as a change in the employee’s condition, a change in job requirements, a change in operational needs, a change in law, etc.”

At the same time, the EEOC expressly cautions against categorical recission of a previously granted accommodation. Reevaluation must remain individualized and evidence-based. The interactive process requires case-specific analysis, not policy-driven rollback – a principle that is not new. 

Essential Functions and In-Person Presence

The EEOC’s guidance emphasizes that pandemic-era flexibility did not permanently redefine essential job functions. The temporary suspension or modification of in-office duties during COVID-19 does not establish those duties are non-essential or telework is always feasible. 

Essential functions are assessed based on current operational realities. In-person attendance may be essential for positions requiring supervision, collaboration, teamwork, or other interactive responsibilities. Whether physical presence constitutes an essential function is necessarily a case-specific inquiry, but employers are not required to treat emergency measures adopted under extraordinary circumstances as the new baseline.

The FAQs reinforce the importance of a job description that accurately reflects current expectations, clearly articulates essential functions, and documents operational needs supporting in-person requirements. 

Evaluating Effectiveness: Does Job Performance Matter?

Although the FAQs do not explicitly center the discussion on performance metrics, effectiveness is inseparable from the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the position. If the employee is performing essential duties successfully in-office with reasonable accommodations, the EEOC recognizes that this weighs heavily against the necessity of telework. Conversely, if the employee cannot perform essential functions despite reasonable accommodations, telework may warrant reconsideration. 

The EEOC also endorses the use of granting accommodations on a trial or temporary basis. Where an employer reasonably believes, based on available evidence, that an in‑office accommodation will be effective, it is not sufficient for an employee to assert prospectively—without supporting evidence—that the accommodation will not work. In such circumstances, the employer may require the employee to report to the office and attempt the accommodation before rejecting it as ineffective.

Generalized Anxiety and the Limits of Telework

The EEOC addresses a common post‑pandemic issue: employees asserting anxiety or similar mental health symptoms tied to working in the office. The FAQs reiterate the ADA does not create a general right to be free from all discomfort or distress at work. The threshold question is whether the asserted symptoms impose a material barrier to the employee’s ability to work in the office or to enjoy equal employment opportunity.

If a material barrier is demonstrated, the employer must consider reasonable accommodation—but the employer need not grant telework as an accommodation unless it is the only effective accommodation. Many situations may be addressed through effective in‑office accommodations, with telework required only if all other options are demonstrably ineffective. The FAQs reiterate that the employer does not need to provide the accommodation of the employee’s preference but, instead, must offer a reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to effectively perform the essential functions.

Scrutiny of Requests 

The EEOC also confirms employers are not required to ignore reliable evidence that undermines an employee’s asserted need for telework. The EEOC expressly acknowledges that employers may follow up on inconsistencies, including where an employee claims an inability to commute or perform certain physical tasks but is observed—including through publicly available social media—engaging in comparable activities outside of work. If follow‑up demonstrates that the employee is not in need of an accommodation or acted in bad faith, the employer may deny or rescind the accommodation.

At the same time, the EEOC cautions that scrutiny must remain disciplined and individualized, and the accommodation process must not become a vehicle for retaliation or fishing expeditions.

No General Duty to Accommodate Commuting 

Finally, the EEOC addresses whether the ADA requires commuting‑related accommodations: in most cases, no. Absent special circumstances, employers have no obligation to assist employees with the methods or means of commuting to and from work, assuming such assistance is not provided to non‑disabled employees. The responsibility for arranging transportation generally rests with the employee, not the employer. 

This is not to say employers have carte blanche to deny any accommodation request relating to a commute. While the employer may not have to grant an accommodation relating to the act of commuting to work, it may have to grant flexibility to employees whose commute is somehow problematic. For example, a reasonable accommodation might include providing a closer parking space for an employee with mobility issues, or allowing an employee who struggles with poor night vision to adjust their start/end time. 

The Bottom Line

The EEOC’s guidance reinforces established principles governing the interactive process and reasonable accommodations. Employers retain the ability to reassess telework arrangements granted under pandemic‑era conditions, to seek additional medical information where warranted, and to require in‑person presence where it remains an essential function of the job. The key is process: individualized analysis, careful documentation, and a clear focus on whether telework—or a viable alternative—actually enables the employee to perform essential duties without imposing undue hardship.