As employers are increasingly calling their employees back to the office, a case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Oross v. Kutztown University, sheds light on the need for individualized assessments when considering requests for remote work accommodations.
The case implies that any policies categorically denying requests for remote work should be rethought by employers. This comes into the spotlight as some employers may argue that in-person attendance is an essential function of certain positions, or that an accommodation to work remotely is not feasible in the company’s structure.
Being aware of this case can be important for legal professionals working in large corporations and law firms, as it can inform decisions regarding remote work policies and practices. It places emphasis on the importance of a case-by-case approach to requests for remote work accommodations, rather than blanket refusals or approvals.
This case also strengthens the argument in favor of flexibility when it comes to addressing issues of work location and accommodation, illustrating the need for employers to remain sensitive to employees’ personal circumstances.
Preserving employees’ rights to reasonable accommodations, while maintaining the functional integrity of organizations, requires an artful balance. As such, this precedent could play a significant role in how employers formulate and enforce their work-from-home policies in the future.