The idea that working from home is a privilege that can be revoked at any time is being tested in courtrooms across the country. For years, employers have argued that in-person attendance is an essential function, even when the job has been done remotely for months or years. But a recent jury verdict in New York suggests that argument has limits—especially when employees have disabilities, proven performance, and a documented accommodation history. The legal framework protecting remote workers is stronger than many realize, but enforcing those protections requires knowing what the law actually says and how to spot when it’s being violated.
Workplace Discrimination
ADA Accommodations
Proximity Bias
Legal Rights
When Two Years of Remote Work Didn’t Matter: The National Grid Verdict
Most of what’s documented here comes from reporting on a single case that made national headlines—Luciano Russo and George Messiah v. National Grid USA—because it illustrates how far an employer will go to force people back into the office, even when remote work has already proven successful. Russo, a dispatcher with severe back injuries, diabetes, and gastrointestinal conditions, worked from home for two years during the pandemic. His productivity actually improved: his gain-sharing bonus nearly doubled in fiscal year 2020 compared with pre-pandemic levels (National Grid disputed the exact figure in its formal answer, but the point remains that he performed well enough to earn a large bonus while remote). Messiah, a dispatcher with a fused hip, failed back surgery syndrome, and anxiety disorder, also worked remotely with no drop in performance.
When the company revoked their remote accommodations in mid-2022, it cited “the nature of the emergency work” and public safety. But the plaintiffs had already spent two years coordinating emergency crews from home, handling gas leaks and service lines via specialized computer systems and phones. The judge denied National Grid’s motion for summary judgment in December 2024, ruling that there were genuine disputes of material fact about whether in-person attendance was truly an essential function. The jury ultimately rejected the company’s defense entirely.
Russo and Messiah both followed the company’s internal process: they contacted the medical department, received permission to continue remote work while paperwork was sorted, and then were threatened with suspension and termination by a different manager who claimed they had been disobeying orders. That internal contradiction—one department saying “yes, we’re working on it” and another saying “be in the office tomorrow or you’re fired”—is a pattern worth watching in your own workplace.
Imagine being told you can keep working from home while your doctor’s paperwork is processed, then receiving a letter accusing you of refusing to return and threatening termination—all while you’re managing a chronic condition that makes commuting physically impossible. That’s not a hypothetical; it’s what happened to Russo and Messiah, and it’s why the jury’s punitive damages signal matters.
For a deeper look at how employment law treats remote work in general, our guide on remote employee rights under attack covers the broader legal landscape.
The Legal Framework: Remote Work as a Reasonable Accommodation
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Since March 2020, the EEOC has actively emphasized that remote work can be a reasonable accommodation—provided the employee can perform the essential functions of the job. But the key phrase is “essential functions.” If a job genuinely cannot be done from home, the request is typically not considered reasonable. Courts have made that clear: in Freeman v. City of Cheyenne, a federal district court ruled that if remote work would eliminate an essential function, the accommodation request isn’t reasonable.
An essential function is a fundamental job duty that the employee must be able to perform, with or without accommodation. Marginal functions are less important. In remote-work disputes, the battle often centers on whether physical presence is truly essential or merely preferred by the employer. The National Grid case established that two years of successful remote work creates powerful evidence against later claims that in-person attendance is essential. Employers cannot simply “reset the clock to pre-2020” and ignore proven performance.
Undue hardship means significant difficulty or expense. Under the New York City Human Rights Law (which applied in the National Grid case), once an employee shows that an accommodation is feasible, the burden shifts to the employer to prove undue hardship—a higher bar than the federal standard. Employers cannot reject telework out of habit, office culture preference, or a blanket “everyone must come back” line without looking at the actual job and the worker’s actual limitations.
The EEOC has filed several notable lawsuits reinforcing this point. In EEOC v. FedEx (January 2025), the agency sued the delivery company after a longtime dispatcher sought to continue teleworking as an accommodation for disabilities limiting her ability to walk—after performing her duties remotely for nearly three years. In EEOC v. Osmose Utilities Services (late 2024), the agency stressed the importance of considering remote work as a reasonable accommodation and warned against adverse treatment after such requests.
- Get your doctor to document the specific limitations that make commuting or in-person work difficult—not just a general note saying “needs to work from home.”
- Submit a written request to HR or your manager, clearly stating that you are requesting a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (or your state’s equivalent law).
- Keep copies of every response you receive, including any mixed messages from different departments.
- If the employer denies the request, ask for a written explanation of why remote work would eliminate an essential function or cause undue hardship.
For more on what employers are required to do, see our post on key employer obligations for remote work employee rights.
The Hidden Bias: Proximity and Promotion Gaps
Even when you’re not dealing with a disability accommodation, remote workers face a subtler form of discrimination: proximity bias. Managers tend to stretch assignments, networking access, and promotion-ready work to people they see in person. According to one legal blog, studies show remote workers receive 31% fewer promotions due to this bias—though that figure comes from an industry source and should be taken as indicative rather than a precise scientific number.
Favoring in-office staff isn’t automatically illegal—employers can choose collaboration models. But legal exposure arises when that preference disguises discrimination against protected groups or ignores accommodation rights. For example, if a remote worker with a disability approved to work from home is consistently treated as less promotable because of that accommodation, the preference shifts from a business choice to potential disability discrimination.
You might notice that high-profile projects, mentoring opportunities, and informal strategy sessions happen in the office, while remote colleagues receive routine tasks and less detailed feedback. The pattern becomes legally problematic when it disproportionately affects women, people of color, or workers with disabilities—groups already more likely to work remotely for caregiving or health reasons.
Research from the National Partnership for Women & Families shows that women are more likely to telework than men across nearly every demographic group, and mothers are far more likely to work fully remotely than fathers. When promotion decisions consistently favor in-office workers, those patterns can mask underlying bias based on sex or family responsibilities.
For a deeper dive into how employment law handles these situations, our article on at-will employment and working from home explains the limits of employer discretion.
The Gender Gap: Less Everyday Discrimination at Home—But Trade-offs Remain
A study published in Organization Science and reported by The Conversation surveyed 1,091 professional women in hybrid jobs in the United States to compare the same person’s experiences across work locations. The results were striking: women were significantly more likely to experience everyday gender discrimination when working on-site than when working remotely. In a typical month, 29% reported discrimination in the office versus 18% when working from home. The pattern held across types of discrimination—being underestimated, excluded from social activities, even sexual harassment.
The contrast was especially sharp for younger women under 30 (31% on-site versus 14% remote) and for women who interacted primarily with male colleagues (58% on-site versus 26% remote). For these groups, remote work provides a meaningful reduction in exposure to everyday sexism.
Being ignored in meetings, asked to perform administrative tasks outside one’s role, receiving inappropriate comments, having ideas credited to others—these everyday slights add up. The cumulative effect makes women feel frustrated and more likely to leave organizations.
Working remotely can limit informal interactions crucial for building relationships, reduce access to mentors and feedback, and make it harder to be considered for high-profile assignments. It also blurs the boundary between office and home, pulling family duties into the workday. These factors are critical for career advancement, especially for women.
The study’s authors point out that remote work is not a silver bullet for gender inequality. It offers less everyday discrimination, but may limit professional opportunities. The key is for employers to import the best practices of remote meetings—structured agendas, turn-taking, asynchronous feedback—into in-person settings, and to acknowledge that on-site work can accelerate skill development while also magnifying bias.
For more on the broader equity picture, the National Partnership report on who works from home provides detailed demographic breakdowns.
Documenting and Reporting: Your Paper Trail Matters
Remote work environments lack the informal corrective mechanisms present in an office. If you suspect discrimination—whether based on disability, pregnancy, race, gender, or religion—documentation becomes your primary tool. The EEOC’s complaint process for remote workers follows the same procedures as for traditional workplaces, with a critical 180-day filing deadline from the discriminatory incident (extended to 300 days if a state or local agency also enforces the law).
- Emails, chat messages, calendar invites showing exclusion from meetings or projects.
- Performance reviews before and after you made a complaint or requested an accommodation.
- Written requests for accommodation and management’s responses.
- Pay records, bonus records, and promotion decisions—especially if they show a pattern.
- Return-to-office directives that are applied unevenly across employees.
- Screenshots of problematic communications in Slack, Teams, or other channels.
For a step-by-step walkthrough of how to file a charge, see the EEOC filing process for remote workers.
Remote workers submit an online inquiry through the EEOC Public Portal and schedule an interview with EEOC staff before completing a formal charge of discrimination. Gather all documentation and prepare a clear timeline of discriminatory events. The process is the same whether the discrimination occurred in person or virtually. Some states like California offer additional protections through agencies like the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with extended one-year filing deadlines.
Remote workers sometimes delay action, hoping a difficult quarter or a challenging manager will improve. Filing deadlines can run quickly, and waiting can kill a claim even when the facts are strong. If you’re unsure, consult with an employment attorney or contact the EEOC early to understand your timeline.
Our guide on understanding employee rights for remote work training costs also covers how employer obligations extend to training and career development—another area where bias can show up.
What This Means for Your Career and Your Rights
The National Grid verdict, the EEOC’s active enforcement, and the growing body of research all point to the same conclusion: remote work is no longer a temporary experiment, and the law is catching up to that reality. Employers who try to force everyone back into the office without considering individual circumstances—especially when those circumstances involve disability, pregnancy, or caregiving—are taking real legal risks. But the burden of proof still rests heavily on employees. Knowing the legal framework, documenting everything, and acting within filing deadlines are the practical steps that separate a successful claim from a missed opportunity.
None of this means remote work is a guaranteed right for every role. Some jobs genuinely require physical presence. But when the work has been done effectively from home for months or years, when accommodations have been granted and then revoked without explanation, or when promotion patterns consistently favor those who show up in person, it’s worth asking whether the real reason is something the law prohibits. The courts are increasingly willing to ask that question too.