{"id":3225,"date":"2026-02-02T18:18:04","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T18:18:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/?p=3225"},"modified":"2026-02-02T18:18:04","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T18:18:04","slug":"fourth-circuit-issues-new-guidance-on-remote-work-as-an-ada-accommodation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/fourth-circuit-issues-new-guidance-on-remote-work-as-an-ada-accommodation\/","title":{"rendered":"Fourth Circuit Issues New Guidance on Remote Work as an ADA Accommodation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a recent decision, Hall Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC<\/em>, No. 24-1010 (4th Circuit 1\/14\/2026), a Fourth Circuit panel has held that an employee who largely failed to appear for required in-person work was not a \u201cqualified individual\u201d under the ADA, defeating both her disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate theories. The plaintiff worked as an accounting assistant, a role involving paper invoices, checks, and physical filing. She had previously worked in a fully remote capacity during the COVID pandemic while she was undergoing treatment for cancer. When the business returned to its normal procedures, the company sought a return to a hybrid schedule and offered flexibility around her medical appointments. However, the record reflected that Plaintiff came into the office only two partial days over roughly three months. The company ultimately terminated her employment for “job abandonment” after she missed more than two weeks of work without notice, even after receiving communications from human resources requesting updates on her status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court framed the core issue around the ADA\u2019s threshold requirement that a Plaintiff be a \u201cqualified individual,\u201d meaning someone who can perform the job\u2019s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. Relying on its precedent that courts owe \u201cconsiderable deference\u201d to an employer\u2019s identification of essential functions, the panel treated in-office accounts payable and filing tasks as essential to the position. Plaintiff argued that the hybrid schedule was the reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to perform essential duties, but the Court concluded that the employer did not renege on a hybrid arrangement. Rather, the Plaintiff did not follow through with on-site attendance or engage reliably in the communication necessary for any workable hybrid accommodation. The Court affirmed the proposition that an employer has \u201cultimate discretion\u201d to choose among reasonable accommodations and need not continue extending accommodations when an employee rejects them. The Court also highlighted that both employers and employees have a “reciprocal obligation” to engage in good faith collaboration to find reasonable accommodations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For employers, the decision reinforces that \u201cremote work\u201d is not automatically a reasonable accommodation when essential functions are tied to physical presence, such as paper workflows, mail, physical records, or when attendance and communication are integral to performance. It also underscores that Courts will closely examine whether the employee participated in the interactive process in good faith. An employee’s failure to communicate can be fatal to an ADA case even where the underlying medical condition is undisputedly serious. For employees, the opinion signals that hybrid-work requests must be paired with consistent follow-through and timely notice of changes in attendance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a recent decision, Hall Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC, No. 24-1010 (4th Circuit 1\/14\/2026), a Fourth Circuit panel has held that an employee who largely failed to appear for required in-person work was not a \u201cqualified individual\u201d under … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3036,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[303],"tags":[305,304,326,325],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3225"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3226,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225\/revisions\/3226"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dsgordonlaw.com\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}