Fifth Circuit Affirms Limits on Post-COVID Remote Work

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of  a government contractor in a former employee’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) suit. The court held that full-time telework was not a reasonable accommodation for an IT systems administrator whose position required regular in-person attendance at an Army installation.

The decision outlines the limits of telework as an ADA accommodation, particularly where the employer is a contractor subject to a client’s operational requirements. It also reaffirms that temporary COVID-19-era remote work arrangements do not permanently alter a position’s essential functions.

Case Background

In Hayes v. GStek, Inc., a contract IT systems administrator, employed by GStek, Inc. and working at Fort Polk military base, was temporarily permitted to telework during the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2022, both the Army and GStek transitioned away from remote work and required in-person attendance at the installation.

The employee was subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, major depressive disorder and social anxiety disorder. He requested full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. GStek denied full-time remote work, explaining that Army officials did not allow this arrangement and retained approval authority over contractor employee telework at the base. GStek did allow the employee to work from home two to three days per week from approximately December 2022 to January 2023.

In January 2023, following what the employee described as a mental breakdown, he began working exclusively from home. He reported that his physician recommended medical leave and stated that he needed to continue working remotely. On Jan. 25, 2023, GStek terminated his employment, citing absenteeism and other performance concerns.

The employee filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana, asserting claims for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. The district court granted GStek judgment on the pleadings on all claims, and the employee appealed.

The Fifth Circuit’s Analysis

In-Person Attendance as an Essential Function

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that in-person attendance at Fort Polk was an essential function of the employee’s IT systems administrator role. The court considered multiple factors, including:

• • The employer’s own judgment that on-site presence was necessary
  • The Army’s explicit determination and its contractual control over telework conditions
  • GStek’s legitimate business interest in honoring the Army’s requirements to maintain its contract
  • The fact that no current incumbent in the role received a telework accommodation
  • Concerns about the employer’s ability to supervise remote work
  • The risk that permitting full-time telework for one employee could “open the floodgates” to similar requests, potentially jeopardizing the company’s relationship with the Army.

Critically, the court addressed the significance of the employee’s prior pandemic-era telework. The Fifth Circuit stated plainly that temporary COVID-era remote work does not permanently alter the essential functions of a job. The court reasoned that the pandemic was an extraordinary circumstance and that an employer’s decision to allow telework during that period did not constitute an admission that physical presence was unnecessary to the role.

Full-Time Telework Not a Reasonable Accommodation

Because in-person attendance was an essential function that the employee could not perform, the court held that full-time telework was not a reasonable accommodation. It would have eliminated, rather than enabled performance of, an essential job duty.

Moreover, the court held that GStek satisfied its obligation to engage in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation by allowing the employee to work from home two to three days per week. That partial accommodation, the court determined, was itself a meaningful effort to balance the employee’s limitations against operational realities.

“Qualified Individual” Holding

The court concluded that the employee was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he could not perform the essential in-person function of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. This determination was independently fatal to both his failure-to-accommodate and disability-discrimination claims.

Retaliation Claim Fails on Causation

On the retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit held that the employee failed to establish the causation element. The court found that approximately three months elapsed between his accommodation request and his termination — a gap the court deemed insufficiently close to establish temporal proximity as evidence of retaliatory intent. The court further reasoned that the employee’s demonstrated inability to perform the essential in-person function of the job independently explained the adverse employment action, breaking any arguable causal link between his protected activity and termination.

Practical Takeaways for Employers Handling Post-Pandemic Telework Requests

1. COVID-era telework is not a binding precedent for ADA purposes. The Fifth Circuit treats pandemic-related remote work arrangements as situational responses to extraordinary circumstances, not permanent concessions regarding essential job functions. Employers should still document, contemporaneously and clearly, when and why they are returning to in-person requirements.
2. Client or contracting-party requirements can inform the essential-function analysis. Where a government contractor or other employer operates under a client’s attendance directives, those directives can reinforce the employer’s position that in-person attendance is essential. Contractors should maintain documentation of client policies that restrict or govern telework.
3. Partial accommodations can satisfy ADA obligations. In this case, the company’s provision of two to three days of telework per week demonstrated good-faith engagement in the interactive process. Employers facing requests for full-time telework should consider whether partial remote schedules represent a viable middle ground that preserves essential on-site duties while addressing an employee’s functional limitations.
4. Three months may be too long for temporal proximity alone. The court’s finding that a three-month gap was insufficient to show causation for ADA retaliation aligns with the general trend in the Fifth Circuit but is fact-dependent. Employers defending retaliation claims should identify intervening legitimate reasons for adverse actions.

Contact Mark Fijman or any member of Phelps’ labor and employment team with questions.