Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Remote Professor? A School’s No-Remote Rule Could Not Avoid an Accommodation Trial
A no-remote rule sounds straightforward. It became much less so when a professor with an autoimmune condition requested an accommodation.
TL;DR: An associate professor diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune condition requested permission to move her scheduled in-person courses online for four semesters while taking immunosuppressive medication. A federal appeals court held that factual disputes over essential job functions, remote work, and the interactive process foreclosed summary judgment on the principal accommodation and discrimination claims. The employer nevertheless won the failure-to-accommodate claim for Spring 2023 because it offered a reasonable in-person alternative.
Most of the employee’s summary-judgment victory disappeared on appeal
The employee, an associate professor, was diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune condition in December 2020. She taught remotely until March 2021, when she took FMLA leave for the rest of the semester while adjusting to immunosuppressive medication.
When the employer resumed in-person instruction, the employee asked to move her scheduled in-person courses online for four semesters. The employer denied the requests or did not respond, relying on a new position that changing course modalities would fundamentally alter its offerings and conflict with student preferences.
The trial court granted the employee summary judgment on nearly all her Rehabilitation Act claims. The Third Circuit vacated the employee’s victory on the core accommodation and discrimination claims and sent those disputed claims back for further proceedings. It affirmed the employer’s Spring 2023 accommodation win.
Although the case arose under the Rehabilitation Act, its employment standards generally track the Americans with Disabilities Act on essential functions, reasonable accommodations, and the interactive process. The analysis therefore applies to employers covered by either law.
In-person teaching could not be declared nonessential on this record
The employer had evidence that it had never hired a full-time faculty member to teach exclusively online, the employee had never taught more than one online class per semester outside the pandemic, and distance learning represented a small share of its courses. The employee countered that no policy, contract, or job description made physical presence essential, and that she had taught online courses for more than a decade.
Those competing facts required weighing evidence, which courts cannot do at summary judgment. They also created a jury question over whether remote teaching was a reasonable accommodation. Separately, the record contained a material factual dispute over whether the employer sufficiently engaged in the interactive process during Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall 2022.
A concrete alternative accommodation saved Spring 2023
For Spring 2023, the employer offered a classroom with limited student capacity, a separate entrance, specialized air filters, and a plexiglass podium. The court held that no reasonable juror could find that option unreasonable.
The Rehabilitation Act required a reasonable accommodation, not the employee’s preferred accommodation. The split result offers employers a useful contrast: a categorical no-remote position created jury questions, while a detailed alternative accommodation carried the day.
Three practical lessons follow.
Blanket rules can turn job functions into jury questions
A written policy required individualized review, yet the employer allegedly treated remote teaching as a categorical fundamental alteration. When job descriptions and accommodation practices point in different directions, a blanket rule may weaken the employer’s position on both essential functions and the interactive process.
Alternative accommodations need operational detail
The successful Spring 2023 offer addressed exposure through room capacity, access, filtration, and a physical barrier. Specific alternatives are easier to defend when HR can connect each feature to the limitation being accommodated.
Pandemic-era remote work changes the evidence, not necessarily the essential functions
The employee’s successful remote teaching during the pandemic did not automatically make physical presence nonessential. Still, her decade of online teaching experience, advanced certification, and the absence of a written in-person requirement helped create a jury question. Employers defending an on-site requirement should be prepared to explain how that requirement appears in the job’s actual duties, written expectations, and ordinary operations.
A no-remote rule may be easy to write. Defending it takes evidence that showing up is essential, a reasonable alternative accommodation, or both.