Remember when half the workforce went home in 2020 and, somehow, the work still got done? Employees remember, too, and many have used that history as ammunition today when employers ask them to return to the office. If an employee teleworked successfully for two years during COVID-19, the argument goes, doesn’t that prove they can perform their job’s essential functions remotely?

The 5th Circuit thinks not. In Hayes v. GStek, Inc., the court affirmed dismissal of an employee’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that his need for full-time telework meant he was not even a “qualified individual” under the statute — pandemic history notwithstanding. Here’s what happened and what it means for your own return-to-office and accommodation decisions.

What Happened in Hayes

Albert Hayes worked as a contract IT systems administrator for GStek, an Army contractor, at Fort Polk. Like many other employees, he teleworked during COVID-19. When the Army and GStek ended remote work in February 2022 and required him to return to the office, Hayes was diagnosed soon after with autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder.

In October 2022, Hayes asked to work from home full-time as a disability accommodation. GStek’s project manager initially thought that could work. But the Army, which had contractual authority over whether GStek’s on-site contractors could telework, said no, full-time telework “would not be in the best interest of the organization.” GStek instead “tried to thread the needle by allowing Hayes to work from home two to three days a week.” Hayes acquiesced, but after an ongoing struggle with his mental health and more missed days in January 2023, GStek terminated his employment “due to his absenteeism and other concerns.”

Hayes sued for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The district court dismissed all three claims on the pleadings. The 5th Circuit agreed that “Hayes’s pleadings fail[ed] to establish a prima facie case for each of his claims,” and its reasoning is worth unpacking.

“But I Worked from Home During COVID-19” Isn’t Enough

To even get in the door on an ADA claim, an employee has to be a “qualified individual” — someone who can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without an accommodation. Courts are supposed to give an employer’s judgment about what counts as essential the greatest weight, alongside things like how current or past employees in similar roles actually performed the job.

Here, the court found in-person attendance was essential to Hayes’s role. The court noted that “in-person attendance is an essential function of Hayes’s job is unsurprising,” because “[t]here is general consensus among courts, including ours, that regular work-site attendance is an essential function of most jobs.” The court emphasized that “the reasonableness of telework cannot be presumed,” and that “[f]ull time teleworking is rarely a reasonable accommodation.”

The Army controlled whether GStek’s contractors could telework, and it had said no to full-time remote work. No other GStek employees supporting the same Army contract teleworked full time. And Hayes’ own supervisor worried that granting his request would open the floodgates to similar demands and jeopardize GStek’s relationship with its client.

Then the court addressed Hayes’ best argument: the fact that Hayes and others had, in fact, teleworked full time effectively during the COVID-19 outbreak. The court held that didn’t matter. Temporarily allowing telework to protect employees’ health during a pandemic does not mean that telework is now always a reasonable accommodation, or that offering it wouldn’t be an undue hardship. Quoting the court’s own previous ruling in Ray v. Columbia Brazoria Indep. Sch. Dist, “[t]he fact that an employer temporarily excused performance of one or more essential functions when it closed the workplace and enabled employees to telework for the purpose of protecting their safety from COVID-19, or otherwise chose to permit telework, does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship.”

The court also flagged that “an employer’s ability to supervise an employee is a factor in determining whether a work-at-home accommodation is reasonable,” and that supervision is harder when an employee never sets foot in the office. Hayes had already had communication problems with his supervisor while working remotely. That cut against him too.

Even if Hayes had cleared the “qualified individual” hurdle, the court noted GStek had already done enough. The ADA requires “reasonable” accommodation, not the employee’s preferred accommodation. By offering two to three telework days a week, GStek met its obligation and Hayes’ continued insistence on full-time remote work didn’t change that calculus.

Once Hayes failed to show he was a qualified individual, his disability discrimination claim fell apart. And his retaliation claim fared no better on two separate grounds: Three months between his accommodation request and his termination wasn’t close enough in time to suggest retaliation on its own, and an employee who can’t perform an essential function of the job can’t use a failed accommodation request to prop up a retaliation claim in the first place.

What This Means for You

• Get your job descriptions in order. The court leaned hard on the fact that in-person attendance was a well-documented requirement, backed by the Army’s contract terms and GStek’s own stated rationale. If on-site presence matters for a role, say so clearly, and in writing, before a dispute arises.
• Don’t let your own pandemic flexibility come back to bite you, so document why you changed course. If you allowed telework during the COVID-19 outbreak and later required a return to the office, write down the business reasons for that shift. Hayes confirms courts in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) won’t treat your old COVID-19 accommodations as a permanent promise, but a paper trail never hurts.
• Offer something, even if you can’t offer everything. GStek didn’t win by refusing to engage — it won partly because it offered a partial telework schedule instead of an outright denial. Document the interactive process and any alternatives you offer; it may be your best evidence later.
• Don’t read this case as a blank check to deny telework. Hayes doesn’t say telework can never be a reasonable accommodation, and it doesn’t hand employers unlimited discretion to declare any job “in-person only.” In Hayes, the government contractor employer restricted telework, there were real supervision problems, and no comparable employees worked remotely. If your facts look different, so might your result.

Bottom line: The 5th Circuit has made clear that your 2020 telework policy does not have to be a permanent HR policy change. But that doesn’t mean you get to skip the accommodation conversation. Keep documenting essential functions, keep engaging with employees who ask for accommodations, and keep a record of what you offer and why.