EEOC’s Recent FAQs for Federal Sector Agencies Regarding Remote Work for Disabled Employees: How Do These FAQs Impact Private Employers?

Takeaways

• The EEOC and OPM issued guidance to federal agencies on when telework for federal employees with disabilities may qualify as reasonable accommodations. 
• Although directed at federal sector employers, the guidance may foreshadow how the EEOC may approach private sector cases. 
• Private sector employers should review the FAQs but also recognize and consider its limitations.

Related links

• Frequently Asked Questions from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities
• Presidential Memorandum, “Return to In-Person Work” (Jan. 20, 2025)

Article

The question of how to return to or maintain in-person work while satisfying legal accommodation obligations for disabled employees is one federal agencies and many private employers have faced.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a FAQ-style joint technical assistance document addressing telework accommodations for federal employees with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on Feb. 12, 2026. The joint guidance is in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, order instructing executive agencies to “return to work in-person … on a full-time basis … consistent with applicable law.”

The guidance is intended to assist agencies in identifying:

• When they must grant or continue telework accommodations; 
• When they may rescind, modify, or deny telework accommodations; and 
• How they can more effectively structure their processes for telework accommodations.

The guidance responds to questions from federal sector employers — the same questions many private sector employers are asking. Although directed to federal agency employers, the guidance may provide helpful guideposts for private sector employers.

EEOC Guidance

As the guidance notes, neither the Rehabilitation Act nor ADA defines telework. The EEOC uses “telework” to refer to work performed at a location other than the employer-controlled worksite full-time, on a regularly scheduled basis, or temporarily to address a particular situation.

The guidance explains that telework can be a reasonable accommodation if it falls under one of three categories of reasonable accommodations:

1. Accommodations that enable applicants with disabilities to participate in the application process; 
2. Accommodations that enable employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their positions; [or] 
3. Accommodations that enable employees with disabilities to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees without disabilities.

Importantly, the guidance makes clear that if the telework is primarily for the employee’s personal benefit, then it would not be a required accommodation under the law. For example, accommodations that only mitigate symptoms without also enabling the employee’s performance of essential functions are not legally required, the guidance states.

On how to deal with ongoing telework arrangements, the guidance states that agencies can revisit previously granted accommodations and “assess whether there continues to be a need for reasonable accommodation based on individualized circumstances [including] whether alternative accommodations might meet those needs.” It directs agencies 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 the law, etc.” The guidance considers the president’s return-to-office order for federal agency employees as a change in operational needs. Note that this is a change in circumstances that permits re-evaluation, not wholesale denial, of such accommodation requests.

The guidance explains that where an employer has exceeded its legal obligations in terms of granting telework, the employer is not obligated to continue the telework arrangement. This avoids disincentivizing or punishing agencies that went beyond legal requirements to help disabled employees, the guidance notes. The guidance cautions agencies from taking a “blanket approach” to rescinding or denying telework accommodations, however; and it emphasizes the importance of engaging in an individualized interactive accommodation process.

As for requesting updated medical documentation to assist the employer in reevaluating previously granted telework, the guidance states that, in some situations, existing medical documentation from the initial grant of the accommodation should be sufficient and all that needs to be done is to ask the employee if the information is still accurate. If the existing documentation is insufficient or no longer accurate, however, the agency is permitted to request updated or additional medical documentation to support the request. Such requests may include asking an employee’s healthcare provider about mitigating measures or self-accommodations that would enable the employee to work in the office (the guidance warns agencies not to deny an accommodation because an employee has declined a particular treatment that might mitigate their condition).

The guidance also provides agencies instructions around sticky issues, such as addressing evidence that contradicts an employee’s need for a telework accommodation, how to respond if an employee asserts a new alternative in-office accommodation is or will be ineffective, an agency’s options if an employee refuses to return to work in the office following the rescission or modification of a telework accommodation, and telework requests related to anxiety, flareups, and commuting issues.

What Does This Mean for Private Sector Employers?

Although the guidance is directed at federal agencies, the EEOC may take the same or similar positions on these issues in the private sector. All employers may want to consider this guidance when determining whether telework accommodations may be granted, modified, or denied and how to structure their process for telework accommodations.

Employers should exercise caution, however, recognizing that, as the EEOC notes, the guidance is not binding and “courts might not defer to [the EEOC’s] views.” This is especially true in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overturning the decades-old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

On balance, much of the information covered in the FAQs is not new to private employers who have been carefully considering requests for remote work on an individualized basis, seeking supporting medical information from treating healthcare providers, considering in-office alternatives, using trial periods for remote work accommodations, and re-evaluating accommodations when circumstances change. The FAQs also approve of the common practice of re-evaluating existing accommodations on an annual basis. That being said, there are multiple positions taken in the guidance that are being intensely litigated around the country, and employers should carefully consider how courts and juries in their jurisdiction have approached these issues.

Employers should also consider applicable state and local laws, including disability accommodation laws that are broader than the ADA and relevant state court decisions. 
Employers should also be mindful that this guidance does not address accommodation obligations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s religious accommodation provisions. The OPM published guidance for federal agencies on situational telework as a religious accommodation in July 2025.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about how this guidance may impact your business decisions.