BlogLine

ADA or FMLA? Why conflating the two creates serious legal risk

4/21/26

By: Paty A. Elizondo

Employees who request to work remotely or seek time away from work for medical reasons may implicate multiple employment statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and, in some circumstances, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). These requests, however, are not interchangeable and trigger different legal obligations. Employers must assess each request individually and respond thoughtfully to avoid potential claims of discrimination, retaliation, or failure to accommodate.

Evaluating a work‑from‑home request

A recent Ohio jury verdict underscores the stakes. The jury awarded a former employee $22.5 million after her employer denied her request to work from home following emergency surgery related to a high‑risk pregnancy. The employee sought temporary remote work to facilitate recovery and avoid strenuous activity. The employer initially denied the request and required her to report to the office. Although the employer reversed course two days later, the employee went into premature labor that same day and the baby later died.

The verdict serves as a stark reminder that how employers respond to accommodation requests, and how quickly, can be just as important as the ultimate decision. Juries increasingly expect employers to meaningfully engage with accommodation requests, particularly where health and pregnancy‑related concerns are involved.

When employers get it wrong: FMLA vs. ADA

Employers frequently misstep by analyzing remote‑work requests through an FMLA lens. That instinct is understandable as medical absences are often governed by the FMLA. FMLA applies only to covered employers and eligible employees and requires a qualifying serious health condition supported by appropriate documentation.

When an employee does not meet FMLA eligibility requirements, or when the medical justification seems insufficient, employers may be tempted to deny the request outright. In doing so, employers often skip a critical step in their analysis.

A request to work remotely is not necessarily a request for leave. When the request is tied to a medical condition, it often implicates the ADA, which does not impose the same eligibility thresholds as the FMLA. Even new employees may be entitled to consideration under the ADA, provided they are otherwise qualified.

Failure to recognize this distinction is a common and costly error.

The ADA requires an interactive process

Under the ADA, an employee is qualified if they can perform the essential functions of their job with or without a reasonable accommodation. When an employer receives a request to work remotely for medical reasons and the employee otherwise falls under the ADA’s definition of disabled, the inquiry should focus on whether the employee can perform those essential functions while working off‑site.

Critically, the ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process. That means:

• Communicating with the employee;
• Evaluating the specific limitations and job duties at issue; and
• Considering reasonable alternatives where appropriate.

An automatic denial, particularly one based on rigid return‑to‑office policies, can support a failure‑to‑accommodate claim.

While an indefinite leave of absence is generally not considered a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, remote work is not a leave of absence at all. The employee remains responsible for performing their job duties and meeting performance expectations. Employers are not required to lower productivity standards, but they must be prepared to articulate why a remote arrangement would prevent the employee from performing essential functions or would impose an undue hardship.

A note on the PWFA

Where pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are involved, employers should also be mindful of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which imposes affirmative accommodation obligations similar to that of the ADA. Requests that might previously have been dismissed as temporary inconveniences may now require closer scrutiny and accommodation analysis.

Remote work in a post‑COVID world

The post‑COVID workplace has changed employer, and jury, expectations. During the pandemic, many employers successfully operated, and many continue to operate, with remote or hybrid teams. This reality now colors how accommodation requests are perceived.

While employers may lawfully require employees to work from the office, once an employee requests remote work as an accommodation, the employer must evaluate that request under the ADA. That analysis should consider:

• The essential functions of the position;
• Whether those functions can be performed remotely;
• The duration of the request; and
• Whether remote work would impose an undue hardship (must be significant).

Failing to conduct that analysis, or defaulting to an FMLA framework, can leave employers defending their decisions before a jury rather than resolving them through a documented, good‑faith process.

Key takeaways for employers

• Do not conflate accommodation requests with leave requests as they trigger different laws and obligations.
• Engage in the interactive process and avoid automatically denying remote‑work requests.
• Focus on essential functions, not assumptions; the question is whether the job can be performed remotely, not whether the employer prefers in‑person work.
• Be especially careful with pregnancy‑related requests as both the ADA and PWFA may apply.

In short, employers should carefully analyze the request under the correct statute, and document a thoughtful, individualized response. As recent verdicts demonstrate, juries are paying close attention.

For more information on this topic contact Paty A. Elizondo at paty.elizondo@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.