How Essential Job Functions Control Accommodation Rights
You follow policy and tell HR that you need an accommodation for your disability in order to do your job safely, and specifically, that you would like to work from home. Your employer says you cannot work remotely because showing up in person is essential to your job. Is this disability discrimination? And who wins that disability accommodation fight? Under employment law, the answer may depend less on what your employer calls “essential” and more on what the evidence proves the job actually requires.
That fight put Carolyn Gardner and Kutztown University on opposite sides of a remarkably modern disability discrimination case.
Gardner was an associate professor diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune condition. She requested permission to teach her scheduled in-person courses remotely for four semesters. Kutztown had a serious defense: it had never hired a full-time faculty member exclusively to teach online, and the University treated requests to move in-person classes online as a “fundamental alteration.”
Case over? Not even close.
Gardner had receipts. She had taught classes remotely for more than a decade. She completed Kutztown’s advanced online certification program in 2013. The collective bargaining agreement evaluated faculty based on “effective teaching, scholarship, and service” without requiring those duties to be performed in person. And Kutztown admitted it had “no policy, contractual definition, or pre-existing job description” stating that in-person teaching was essential.
Gardner sued Kutztown for disability discrimination and wrongful termination after the University rejected her requests to teach remotely. The District Court largely granted summary judgment to Gardner. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the competing evidence concerning essential job functions and reasonable accommodation could not be weighed at summary judgment and allowed those disputed issues to proceed toward trial. Gardner v. Kutztown University, No. 25-1295, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24836 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).
For an employee seeking remote work as a disability accommodation, that fight exposes the weakness in a blanket “everyone must work in person” defense. An employer can call physical presence a central function of the job. Calling it essential does not make it an established fact.
Legal Takeaways
- An employee pursuing a disability discrimination claim must be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. When the employee and employer present competing evidence about whether physical presence is an essential job function, weighing that evidence may belong to the jury rather than the judge at summary judgment.
- An employer must provide a reasonable disability accommodation when legally required, but the employee is not necessarily entitled to the particular accommodation preferred when the employer offers another accommodation that is itself reasonable.
What Is An Essential Job Function And Why Does It Matter For Disability Accommodation Requests?
An essential job function is a duty an employee must be able to perform, with or without a reasonable disability accommodation. That requirement sits at the heart of a disability discrimination claim because the law protects a qualified employee; it does not require an employer to eliminate an essential function of the position.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals framed the rule precisely. To establish a prima facie claim for intentional disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Gardner had to show that she was disabled, was “qualified” to perform the “essential functions” of her job with or without reasonable accommodation, and was nonetheless prevented from performing her job.
“Qualified” has two parts. First, the employee must satisfy the prerequisites for the position, such as the appropriate education, experience, skills, and licenses. Second, the employee must be able to perform the essential functions of that position with or without reasonable accommodation. Gardner cleared the first hurdle: Kutztown did not dispute that she possessed the education and experience necessary to work as an associate professor.
The second hurdle is where disability accommodation law does its real work. A reasonable accommodation can change how an employee performs a job while still allowing the employee to perform its essential functions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an accommodation is reasonable when it enables a qualified employee to “perform the essential functions of that position” or “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.”
Put simply: accommodation can change how an essential job function is performed; the employee must still be able to perform the essential function.
That distinction separates the job’s central function from the conditions an employer places around performing it. In Gardner’s case, everyone agreed she had the professional qualifications to teach. The unresolved employment law question was what her essential functions actually required.
Practical Tip: When requesting a disability accommodation, identify the job duties you can perform and how the requested accommodation would allow you to continue performing them. That creates a record focused on the legal question that matters: whether the accommodation permits you to perform the essential functions of your job.
Best Workplace Disability Accommodation Law Firm Blogs on Point:
Is Working In Person Really An Essential Function Of My Job?
Not necessarily. An employer can require in-person work, but in a disability discrimination case, calling physical presence an essential job function does not resolve whether it actually is one. The evidence about the job matters. For example, in-person presence is more likely to be considered essential for roles like a surgeon performing operations, a firefighter responding to emergencies, or a courtroom trial attorney who must appear before a judge and jury. A fry cook cannot drop the basket of tenders remotely. By contrast, it is often not essential for jobs such as software development, data analysis, or many administrative roles that can be performed effectively remotely with the same outputs and performance standards.
Kutztown had evidence supporting its position. It had never hired a full-time faculty member to teach exclusively online. Except during COVID, Gardner had never taught more than one online class during a semester. And online courses represented only 6% of Kutztown’s offerings before COVID and 13% afterward. Those facts supported Kutztown’s argument that an associate professor was expected to teach in person.
Gardner’s evidence attacked that argument at its foundation.
The collective bargaining agreement evaluated faculty based on “effective teaching, scholarship, and service” without requiring those duties to occur in person. Kutztown admitted it had “no policy, contractual definition, or pre-existing job description” stating that in-person teaching was essential. Gardner had also taught classes remotely for more than a decade and completed Kutztown’s advanced online certification program in 2013.
That is a powerful factual contrast. The employee was not merely arguing that she thought she could work remotely. She had evidence about how Kutztown defined her job, how Kutztown had documented its requirements, and how she had actually performed teaching duties in the past.
The job on paper and the job in practice can test an employer’s claim about what is truly essential.
For an employee seeking remote work as a disability accommodation, that distinction can be decisive. If the employer claims location is essential, an attorney evaluating the discrimination claim should want the documents defining the position and the evidence showing how the work has historically been performed. In Gardner’s case, those categories of evidence pointed in competing directions.
Practical Tip: If your employer claims you must work in person, preserve the job description, employment policies, contracts, remote-work history, training records, and communications showing where and how you have performed the same duties. Specific evidence about the actual job gives an employment lawyer something concrete to test against the employer’s claim that physical presence is essential.
Best Disability Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
Can My Employer Automatically Deny My Request To Work Remotely?
No. An employer cannot automatically deny remote work as a disability accommodation without properly considering whether the employee can be reasonably accommodated. Under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the interactive process requires a good-faith effort to address a disability accommodation request.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee claiming failure to accommodate must show: “(1) [s]he was disabled and h[er] employer knew it; (2) [s]he requested an accommodation or assistance; (3) h[er] employer did not make a good faith effort to assist; and (4) [s]he could have been reasonably accommodated.” An accommodation is reasonable when it enables a qualified employee to perform the essential functions of the position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.
Consistent with the ADA, Kutztown’s own policies created a problem for its defense. Its written policy required formal disability accommodation requests to be evaluated individually. But when Gardner requested remote teaching, Kutztown relied on a newly implemented position that requests to move in-person classes online would be considered a “fundamental alteration” and denied. For Gardner’s four requests, Kutztown either denied them or provided no response.
Kutztown argued that it nevertheless acted in good faith during the interactive process. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held: “KU is not correct.” The record instead presented a material factual dispute over whether Kutztown sufficiently engaged in the interactive process for Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall 2022.
Then came Spring 2023. Kutztown offered Gardner limited classroom capacity, a separate entrance, specialized air filters, and a plexiglass podium. That was enough. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that no reasonable juror could conclude the proposed accommodation was unreasonable because an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation, not the accommodation the employee prefers.
But Kutztown’s Spring 2023 victory may create a harder question for its defense to the earlier semesters. By Spring 2023, Kutztown had identified multiple measures that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found constituted a reasonable means of minimizing Gardner’s risk of illness exposure. Why weren’t these measures considered and offered earlier during the interactive process for the prior semesters? That framing naturally leads to the central question. From an employee-side attorney’s perspective, Kutztown’s earlier refusals begin to look less like a lack of available options and more like a breakdown in the interactive process itself.
This matters. An employer cannot defend an ADA or Rehabilitation Act accommodation claim merely by showing that the employee did not receive the particular accommodation requested. The employer’s own later solution may become evidence worth examining when determining whether reasonable alternatives existed earlier and whether the employer genuinely made a good-faith effort to find them.
An automatic no can create a disability discrimination problem. A reasonable alternative can solve one. But a reasonable alternative discovered later may also raise questions about what the employer failed to consider earlier.
Practical Tip: Put your disability accommodation request in writing and preserve every response, proposed alternative, and unanswered communication. If your employer later offers an accommodation it previously failed to discuss, preserve when and how that option appeared; an employment lawyer can evaluate whether that chronology bears on the employer’s good-faith participation in the interactive process.
Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Who Decides Whether My Employer Is Right That I Must Work In Person?
The jury, not the judge. When an employee and employer present competing evidence about whether working in person is an essential job function, the judge cannot decide which side has the better evidence at summary judgment. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the essential-function determination is a factual issue that “must be decided by a jury.”
Oddly enough, Gardner lost because of that rule. Normally, the employer is moving for and getting summary judgment. This is the rare case where the District Court granted summary judgment for the employee on Gardner’s intentional disability discrimination claims. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals took that victory away because her claims depended on whether in-person teaching was essential and whether full-time remote work was a reasonable disability accommodation. Those questions required “weighing evidence,” which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that both it and the District Court were “plainly prohibited from undertaking at summary judgment.”
Gardner lost a judgment. She did not lose her factual fight.
And that distinction may be far better for employees generally. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held: “We do not suggest that the District Court here had no basis” for its conclusion—or even that the appellate judges, “if we were the triers of fact,” would decide differently. The problem was not necessarily the answer. The problem was that a judge had answered a disputed factual question reserved for the factfinder.
That is a meaningful protection in ADA and Rehabilitation Act litigation. An employer cannot win summary judgment on a disputed essential job function merely by persuading a judge that its evidence looks stronger. If deciding the issue requires weighing competing proof, the factual fight belongs before the jury.
A judge decides whether there is a real factual fight. The jury decides who wins it.
And getting past summary judgment can change the settlement equation. Once dismissal is off the table, an employer must confront the expense of trial, the uncertainty of putting witnesses before jurors, and the risk that the jury believes the employee. Those pressures can make resolution more attractive and give an employee meaningful negotiating leverage.
So Gardner’s reversal should not be mistaken for a simple employer victory. It took an early win away from one employee while reinforcing a rule that can help other disability discrimination and disability accommodation claims survive summary judgment. For an employment lawyer, getting a supported factual dispute to a jury can mean the difference between a case ending on motion practice and an employer having to confront the risks of trial or meaningful settlement.
Practical Tip: Give your attorney evidence, not conclusions. Preserve documents and testimony contradicting the employer’s claimed essential job function. A genuine factual dispute can keep an ADA disability accommodation claim alive through summary judgment, preserve the employee’s path to a jury, and strengthen settlement leverage as trial approaches.
Best Employee’s Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
How Do I Find An Attorney For A Wrongfully Denied Disability Accommodation?
Look for an attorney who represents employees and knows how to turn an ADA disability accommodation dispute into evidence. The best employment lawyer should investigate what your job actually requires, test the employer’s claimed essential functions, reconstruct the interactive process, identify accommodations the employer failed to consider, and build the factual disputes that can defeat summary judgment. A denial letter is only the beginning. The evidence behind it can decide the case.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated to employee rights. Our size provides resources to fight employers, while our extensive trial experience shapes how we build disability discrimination and employment law cases from the start. We offer free initial consultations and a no-fee guarantee because employees facing workplace discrimination should be able to understand their legal options before worrying about attorney fees.
If your employer wrongfully denied a disability accommodation, retaliated against you, or wrongfully fired you after requesting one, call Spitz. Our employment lawyers prepare cases to survive summary judgment, negotiate from strength, and go to trial when necessary.
Frequently Asked Employment Law Questions
Yes, an employer can deny remote work if it is not a reasonable disability accommodation, including when remote work would prevent the employee from performing an essential job function. But calling physical presence essential does not automatically establish that it is; disputed evidence about an essential function may require resolution by a jury.
What Is An Essential Job Function Under The ADA?
An essential job function is a fundamental duty that an employee must be able to perform with or without a reasonable accommodation. In ADA and disability discrimination disputes, whether a particular requirement is essential can determine whether the employee is qualified for the position.
Does An Employer Have To Use The Interactive Process For A Disability Accommodation?
The interactive process requires a good-faith effort to address a requested disability accommodation. Relevant issues include whether the employer knew of the disability, whether the employee requested assistance, whether the employer made a good-faith effort to assist, and whether the employee could have been reasonably accommodated.
Does My Employer Have To Give Me The Exact Disability Accommodation I Request?
No. An employer may satisfy its accommodation obligation by offering a different reasonable disability accommodation. The employee is not necessarily entitled to the preferred accommodation if the alternative offered by the employer is reasonable.
Can Disability Discrimination Lead To Wrongful Termination?
A wrongful termination claim can involve disability discrimination when an employee is wrongfully fired because of a legally protected disability or issues involving a disability accommodation. Whether a termination violates employment law depends on the specific facts and applicable legal requirements.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights and workplace discrimination blog provides general information about employment law, ADA rights, disability discrimination, disability accommodation, essential job functions, the interactive process, wrongful termination, and employees who believe they were wrongfully fired. It is not legal advice. Employment law rights depend on the specific facts and applicable law, so consult a qualified employment lawyer or attorney about your circumstances. No result, recovery, settlement, or outcome is promised or guaranteed, and past results do not guarantee future results. Reading this blog or contacting Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm does not create an attorney-client relationship unless one is expressly established. This blog is a legal advertisement.