Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
What Does the ADA Require Before You Pull a Telework Accommodation You Already Approved?
The employer granted a dispatcher’s telework accommodation, watched her work successfully from home for nearly three years, then yanked it without ever talking to her according to the EEOC. That sequence cost $280,000.
This week is EEOC Settlement Week on The Employer Handbook: one recent EEOC settlement per day, with practical takeaways for employers. Today: a $280,000 ADA consent decree over a revoked telework accommodation and the forced retirement that followed.
TL;DR: According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employer approved a dispatcher’s request to continue teleworking as an ADA accommodation, then revoked it nearly three years later without interviewing the employee, assessing alternatives, or conducting any individualized analysis. Unable to commute to the new Manhattan office due to her disabilities, the employee was forced to retire after 30 years. The EEOC sued, and the case settled for $280,000 through a consent decree that also requires training, policy updates, and EEOC reporting.
Thirty Years of Service, Three Years of Approved Telework, Revoked in One Committee Meeting
According to the complaint, the employee worked as a dispatcher in the employer’s Somerset, New Jersey location for approximately 30 years. When the employer relocated dispatch operations to a Manhattan office in 2020, the commute became unmanageable: her Type II diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and diabetic neuropathy substantially limited her mobility, and the 40-mile trip required multiple train connections. When COVID-19 hit, dispatchers were sent home. She sought to continue teleworking as an ADA accommodation, the committee approved it, and she worked successfully from home for nearly three years, covering shifts when colleagues called out and consistently praised as a dependable, self-starting team player.
In February 2023, two dispatch managers asked the committee to re-evaluate telework accommodations for disabled dispatchers, citing decreased COVID cases and a desire for in-office presence. According to the complaint, when the committee met on February 28, 2023, it did not speak with the requesting managers, the employee, or any other affected dispatcher, did not assess operational costs, and did not consider alternative accommodations. It revoked telework for all affected disabled dispatchers in one meeting. Unable to reach the Manhattan office, the employee retired on July 31, 2023, after exhausting her benefits.
The EEOC filed suit in January 2025 and reached a consent decree entered April 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The $280,000 covers the plaintiff and similarly aggrieved dispatchers and requires updated accommodation policies, training for employees reviewing accommodation requests, an annual executive message, and EEOC compliance reporting for two years.
Three Process Failures That Made This Case Harder to Defend
Three process gaps made this settlement harder to avoid. All three are fixable:
A blanket revocation covering all disabled employees is not an individualized assessment
The ADA requires accommodation decisions on an individual basis. Pulling telework from an entire group of disabled employees in a single meeting, without speaking to any of them, is the opposite of that. Coworker complaints about remote work can factor into an undue hardship analysis, but they are not a substitute for it. When the record shows no operational assessment and no conversation with the affected employee, “our other employees don’t like it” is unlikely to carry the day.
Three years of successful performance is hard evidence an accommodation was reasonable
Nearly three years of documented successful telework undercuts any argument that the accommodation was unreasonable or operationally disruptive. If business conditions require rescinding an approved accommodation, the employer needs a contemporaneous record showing what changed, when, and why it affects this particular role.
The interactive process requires actually talking to the employee
The complaint alleges the committee decided without speaking to the employee. Under the ADA, that conversation is not optional. A brief, documented exchange about whether alternatives exist can change the legal picture considerably.
The return-to-office wave of the last two years has generated a significant share of ADA accommodation disputes. Telework cases are not going away, and the interactive process requirements apply just as squarely when an employer is pulling back an accommodation as when it is deciding whether to grant one in the first place.