Love-hate relationships are found in many places other than romance novels. Think about the work environment; employers love their hard-working employees but hate absenteeism and excuses. Employees love earning good money but hate overbearing employers.

Before the COVID era, lots of good law existed about accommodations required by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) for employees working varying schedules. The issue revolved around whether an employer may require a disabled employee to physically show up at the workplace, or if working remote is a reasonable accommodation. Most employees, including disabled employees, were accustomed to on-site work and working fully remote was unusual.

Then came COVID and the work world was turned upside down. Millions of white-collar workers were sent home to work remotely and plenty of those workers found a successful balance between their work-life and personal life. In my line of work, mediators transitioned to conducting mediations by Zoom, and I, along with many other mediators, had great success with virtual mediations. Today, about 20-25% of my mediations are fully remote.

The Tension Between Employees and Employers

Today, employees have stronger arguments that they can do their job successfully while working remotely. Not only have they been remote for months, if not years, but employers have remained profitable through it all. Moreover, lots of employers are struggling to recruit qualified employees. If you are an employer facing this crisis, you might want to offer employees fully or partially remote work to compete with other employers offering remote work as a perk.

This is where the love-hate relationship comes into play. Employers believe they should be able to mandate where their employees work. Employees (both those with no disabilities and those with a disability that is either permanent or temporary) find that working remotely helps them to be successful employees. Employees with the requisite medical documentation supporting their request to work from home can make a strong argument for a remote workplace.

Developing Law Around This Issue

Since COVID, a few cases have addressed this tension. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an ADA and FMLA (Federal Family Medical Leave Act) decision in January 2026. In Siebrecht v Mercy Health-Iowa, No. 24-3159 (8th Cir. 2026), plaintiff worked as a physician’s assistant (PA) in a rural critical access facility. The facility was staffed by at least one health care provider 24/7. The providers were required to work at least one 24-hour shift per pay period and weekend shifts. Plaintiff developed multiple sclerosis and took two approved FMLA leaves. Thereafter, plaintiff requested a permanent exemption from the 24-hour shift and weekend shifts pursuant to the ADA.

Although plaintiff had the requisite medical documentation supporting her request for an accommodation to be exempted from the 24-hour and weekend shifts, the employer non-renewed her contract at its conclusion. Defendant concluded that working the shifts were essential functions of the job.

Plaintiff filed suit for violations of the ADA, FMLA and the Iowa Human Rights Act. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted the employer’s motion. The 8th Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff’s inability to work the shifts as assigned by the employer, resulted in plaintiff’s inability to perform the essential functions of her job. Plaintiff argued the essential function of the job was to care for patients, but the court focused its inquiry, not on the ultimate purpose of services, but rather on the specific tasks required to complete the ultimate purpose. The essential function of a job encompasses more than core job requirements and includes scheduling flexibility.

There have been other post COVID workplace decisions. In Bridges v. City of Milwaukee, No. 23-CV-959 (ED WI 2025) the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged her employer failed to accommodate her many medical conditions. Plaintiff requested to work remotely; however, she was a supervisor, and the employees who reported to her, were required to be in person. Defendant denied the request for remote work. In its ruling, the Court wanted to look further into the facts surrounding the request and as of March 2026, this case is pending in the Wisconsin court.

In another factually similar case, Cowell v. Illinois Department of Human Services, No. 3:21-CV-00478 (So IL 2024) the Southern District of Illinois denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment writing that: “assessing whether in-person attendance [at the workplace] is an essential function of a job requires context specific analysis.”

Takeaways for Counsel

The fallout from COVID is evolving. Several take-aways for lawyers and others working in the Human Resources field are:

• Courts will do a thorough review, job-by-job, on whether physical presence is an essential function.
• Job descriptions should affirmatively state whether physical presence is necessary at the workplace.
• Beware of exceptions to the rules on physical presence; employees will compare their situations.
• Whether physical presence at the workplace is necessary for underling employees or similarly situated employees.
• The interactive process between the employer and employee after a request for an accommodation is made should be meaningful.

Conclusion

The workplace love-hate relationship over remote work is not going away. COVID proved that many jobs can be performed successfully outside the traditional office, but it did not eliminate an employer’s right to define essential job functions. Courts are signaling that the answer will rarely be categorical. Instead, the analysis will be practical, fact-specific, and grounded in the realities of the workplace.

For employers, consistency, clarity, and documentation matter more than ever. For employees, medical support and a thoughtful, collaborative approach to the interactive process remain critical. The tension between flexibility and operational necessity will continue to shape ADA litigation in the coming years.

In the end, the question is not whether remote work is good or bad. The question is whether, in a specific job, under specific circumstances, physical presence is truly essential. As the case law develops, one thing is certain: courts will look beyond preferences and focus on function.

*KIM L. KIRN is a mediator and arbitrator at Miles Mediation & Arbitration in St. Louis, Missouri.