There is a renewed push to bring employees back into the office. Leaders want collaboration, mentorship, culture, and innovation. All legitimate business objectives.

But here is the part that cannot get lost in the momentum: a return-to-office mandate does not cancel your obligations under the law.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidance to federal agencies explaining how they must handle telework accommodations while implementing a full-time, in-person directive. Although the guidance applies to the federal workforce under the Rehabilitation Act, the legal analysis mirrors the ADA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

For private employers, the message is clear: your business strategy may evolve. Your legal obligations have not.

The Legal Risk is in the Rollout, Not the Decision

You are allowed to decide that in-person work is better for your organization. You are not allowed to revoke disability accommodations across the board because you want everyone back onsite.

The exposure does not come from announcing a return-to-office policy. It comes from implementing it without individualized assessment. If an employee has an approved telework accommodation, you must reassess whether the disability still exists, whether it still impacts essential functions, and whether telework remains necessary.

That process must be grounded in facts. Not frustration. Not optics. Not culture debates.

Blanket revocations are where lawsuits begin.

“We Did it Remotely During COVID” is Not the End of the Story

Pandemic flexibility did not permanently redefine every job as remote.

You may restore essential functions that require physical presence if those functions are genuinely essential today. But expect scrutiny. Courts will ask why a role performed remotely for two years now requires daily onsite attendance.

“Because we prefer it” will not carry much legal weight. Demonstrating that supervision, collaboration, safety, confidentiality, or operational demands require physical presence will.

Essential functions must reflect current business realities — not reactionary swings.

Telework Can Be Reasonable. But it is Not Automatic

Telework is sometimes a reasonable accommodation. It is not a guaranteed one, though.

The law does not require employers to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation. It requires an effective accommodation. If modified schedules, workspace adjustments, assistive technology, or task restructuring allow the employee to perform essential functions in the office, you may choose those options instead.

But if telework is the only effective way for the employee to perform essential job duties, you likely must provide it unless it creates undue hardship. That decision must be evidence-based. Not philosophical.

Anxiety About the Office is Not Automatically Disabling

Many employers are seeing accommodation requests tied to anxiety about returning to in-person work.

The law does not guarantee a stress-free workplace. The legal question is whether a medical condition substantially limits the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to access a benefit of employment. If the employee can perform successfully onsite, that fact matters. If there is a legitimate barrier, you engage in the interactive process and explore reasonable solutions.

Remote work becomes legally required only if other effective accommodations will not work and telework would not impose undue hardship. Discomfort is not the same as disability.

Commute Problems Usually Stay With the Employee

A long commute. Traffic. Relocating during the pandemic. These realities are understandable. They typically are not accommodation obligations, though.

Employers generally are not required to eliminate commuting barriers outside their control. Flexible scheduling may sometimes be reasonable. Permanent telework solely to address commute challenges usually is not.

This distinction matters as organizations recalibrate expectations.

You Can Reevaluate Pandemic-Era Accommodations

Many telework arrangements were granted quickly during COVID with limited documentation.

You may revisit them. You may request updated medical information. You may reassess whether telework remains necessary. You may determine that circumstances have changed.

What you cannot do is revoke accommodations reflexively or as part of a sweeping policy reset. Reevaluation must remain individualized and defensible.

The Quiet Risk: Retaliation

Employees who request or receive accommodations are protected from retaliation.

Managers who characterize telework requesters as less committed, less loyal, or less promotable create exposure that has nothing to do with remote work and everything to do with discipline and training.

Return-to-office enforcement and disability compliance must operate with the same level of professionalism. Tone, documentation, and consistency matter.

The Real Bottom Line

Return-to-office is a leadership decision. Disability accommodation is a legal framework. Smart employers treat them as parallel tracks. They implement business strategy while engaging in disciplined, individualized analysis. They train managers. They document decisions. They resist the temptation to solve everything with one sweeping policy. You can bring people back. You just cannot bring them back blindly.

A Few Final Words

Most disability-related lawsuits do not start with bad intent. They start with rushed implementation.

If you are rolling out a return-to-office mandate and want to pressure-test your approach before it becomes a claim, now is the time to do it — not after the demand letter arrives.

Smart prevention beats expensive defense. Every time.