Quick Hits
- On May 8, 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a disability discrimination claim because the plaintiff could not return to work in person, which was one of the essential functions of the job.
- The employer satisfied its obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation by offering telework two to three days a week, which the employee rejected.
- The employee’s inability to perform the essential job functions defeated causation for purposes of his retaliation claim.
Factual Background
The plaintiff worked for GStek, Inc., a federal contractor, as an IT systems administrator at Fort Polk’s Army Network Enterprise Center. He originally teleworked during the COVID-19 pandemic but was required to return to in-person work in February 2022 when the U.S. Army and GStek transitioned away from remote arrangements. After returning to the office, the plaintiff was diagnosed with autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. He requested full-time remote work as a reasonable accommodation in October 2022, but GStek denied the request because the Army had begun to implement a return-to-work policy that did not authorize certain contractors to telework. Instead, the company agreed to allow the plaintiff to work from home two or three days per week.
The plaintiff missed work due to mental illness and medication adjustments, and GStek discharged him in January 2023 based on absenteeism. In October 2024, the plaintiff sued the company for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.
Court’s Analysis
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an essential predicate to a disability discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claim is that the individual be “qualified,” meaning he can perform the essential job functions despite his disability or that a reasonable accommodation would enable him to perform his essential job duties.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was not “qualified” because he was unable to satisfy the requirement of in-person attendance, which was an essential function. “The Army determined that allowing full-time teleworking was not in its interests, and as an Army contractor, GStek had a business interest in honoring the Army’s conditions,” the court stated. The court reasoned that in-person attendance is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs, and the pandemic did not change that. The court further reasoned that remote work is not a reasonable accommodation if it interferes with a supervisor’s ability to supervise an employee.
Absent qualification, the plaintiff’s disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims failed as a matter of law. Additionally, the court recognized that GStek satisfied any accommodation obligations it had by offering remote work for two to three days per week. GStek was not required to provide the plaintiff with his preferred accommodation because “it would represent a change to the essential functions of his job.”
As to retaliation, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the three-month period between his accommodation request and his separation sufficed to show causation. Moreover, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s lack of qualification defeated his ability to show causation. “Without being a qualified individual, his request for accommodation was doomed, and that failed request cannot be the basis for a retaliation claim.”
The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Key Takeaways
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion offers several takeaways, including the following:
- Documenting essential functions clearly. The court relied heavily on evidence that in-person attendance was an established requirement—backed by the Army’s contractual authority and the employer’s own judgment. Employers may want to review job descriptions to ensure they clearly articulate which functions are essential, including attendance and on-site presence where applicable.
- COVID-era telework does not set a permanent precedent. The court explicitly stated that temporarily permitting remote work during the pandemic does not mean employers have permanently altered a position’s essential functions or that telework is always a feasible accommodation. Employers that offered telework and have since returned to an in-person requirement might consider documenting the business reasons for that change.
- Engaging in an interactive process and offering alternatives. GStek was not required to grant the plaintiff’s preferred full-time telework accommodation. However, the fact that GStek offered a partial telework schedule (two to three days per week) seemingly strengthened its legal position. Thorough documentation of the interactive process, including any alternative accommodations offered, may be beneficial in defending later claims.
Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, Louisiana, Mississippi, Return to Work, and Texas blogs as additional information becomes available.
Tiffany Stacy is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins San Antonio office.
This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts