I. Introduction
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) imposes a duty on covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, absent undue hardship (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)). While the statute has remained largely unchanged, the legal interpretation and application of accommodation obligations have evolved significantly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. These developments include expanded recognition of long COVID as a disability, increased scrutiny of remote work requests, and adjustments in the undue hardship analysis. This article surveys the ADA’s reasonable accommodation framework, assesses emerging case law and agency guidance, and identifies practical implications for both employers and employees navigating the post-pandemic workplace.
II. Legal Framework for Reasonable Accommodation
A. Statutory Basis
Under Title I of the ADA, a covered employer may not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability in job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, or other terms and conditions of employment (42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). A key component of this protection is the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with known physical or mental limitations (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines reasonable accommodation as “any change in the work environment or in the way things are customarily done” to enable a qualified individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)). Examples include:
- Modified work schedules
- Remote or hybrid work arrangements
- Ergonomic equipment
- Job restructuring
- Leave as an accommodation
However, an employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would impose an undue hardship, defined as “significant difficulty or expense” in light of the employer’s resources and the nature of the accommodation (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)).
B. Interactive Process
Although not explicitly required by the ADA’s text, courts and the EEOC interpret the statute to impose a duty to engage in an interactive process—a good-faith dialogue between employer and employee to identify and implement effective accommodations (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 535 U.S. 391, 401 (2002)). Failure to participate in this process may itself constitute a violation, even if the underlying accommodation request is ultimately deemed unreasonable.
III. Recent Developments in Accommodation Law Post-COVID
A. Long COVID as a Disability
In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued joint guidance recognizing that “long COVID” may constitute a disability under the ADA if it substantially limits one or more major life activities (see HHS/DOJ Guidance on Long COVID as a Disability, July 26, 2021).
Symptoms of long COVID—such as fatigue, cognitive impairment (“brain fog”), and respiratory difficulty—may qualify as disabling if persistent and limiting. EEOC guidance confirms that employers must assess these claims on a case-by-case basis (see EEOC Technical Assistance, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA,” updated July 2023).
Courts are beginning to recognize long COVID claims under the ADA. For example, in Thompson v. Fresh Products LLC, 2022 WL 3646611 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2022), the court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s post-COVID symptoms substantially limited major life activities, precluding summary judgment.
B. Remote Work as a Reasonable Accommodation
Remote work, once seen as an exceptional accommodation, became standard during the pandemic. This has significantly altered courts’ and employers’ views on whether telework constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
In EEOC v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., 2021 WL 4060373 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2021), the court allowed an ADA claim to proceed where an employer denied continued remote work to an employee with a respiratory condition, despite having permitted it during COVID-19 lockdowns. The court emphasized the employer’s prior success with remote work in evaluating the reasonableness of the request.
This trend suggests that past pandemic accommodations may serve as evidence that certain requests are feasible under normal circumstances. However, courts continue to evaluate such requests in light of the essential job functions, which may or may not be performable remotely (See, Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp., Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 812 (6th Cir. 2020)).
C. Increased Scrutiny of Undue Hardship
The undue hardship defense remains a high bar for employers. Courts assess:
- Financial impact
- Size and resources of the employer
- Impact on operations
- Disruption to coworkers or business workflow
During and after COVID-19, courts have shown greater skepticism toward blanket undue hardship defenses, particularly where employers failed to document specific costs or burdens of a proposed accommodation.
For instance, in Davis v. NYC Dep’t of Education, 2023 WL 143871 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023), the court rejected the employer’s claim that remote work imposed an undue hardship where the employee had been teaching from home effectively for months. The court found that vague assertions about the importance of in-person presence were insufficient.
IV. Practical and Strategic Considerations
A. Documentation and Interactive Process
Employers should maintain detailed records of all steps in the accommodation process, including communications, assessments, and decisions. A breakdown in the interactive process, especially if caused by employer inaction, may independently violate the ADA—even if the ultimate accommodation is found unreasonable (Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 312 (3d Cir. 1999)).
B. Evaluating Remote Work
Employers must reevaluate prior assumptions about telework. If an employee performed essential functions remotely during COVID-19, it may be difficult to claim that continued telework is inherently unreasonable. However, employers may still deny remote work if in-person duties are truly essential and remote performance would degrade productivity, oversight, or collaboration.
C. Accommodating Mental Health Conditions
The pandemic has led to a rise in ADA accommodation requests for anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other mental health conditions. EEOC guidance confirms that such conditions may qualify as disabilities if substantially limiting. Reasonable accommodations may include schedule flexibility, reduced travel, or reassignment to a less stressful position.
Employers must treat mental health accommodations with the same rigor and seriousness as physical impairments, including careful documentation and medical verification when appropriate.
V. Conclusion
The post-COVID landscape has reshaped the legal and practical contours of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Courts and agencies are increasingly receptive to claims arising from long COVID, telework denial, and mental health impairments, and employers must adjust their compliance strategies accordingly.
While the ADA continues to require case-by-case assessments, employers can no longer rely on pre-pandemic assumptions to justify refusals. The pandemic created new precedents—both practical and legal—that courts are now using as benchmarks for evaluating the feasibility and reasonableness of accommodations.
As litigation in this space accelerates, understanding the ADA’s evolving accommodation doctrine will be critical for attorneys, HR professionals, and compliance officers alike.