Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—5th Cir.: Army contractor, denied post-pandemic request to continue working remotely, cannot revive claims, (May 11, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“The COVID pandemic did not change the reality that in-person work is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs.”

Affirming a district court’s dismissal of ADA claims for failure-to-accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation asserted by a former Army contractor, the Fifth Circuit determined that the contractor had failed to establish a prima facie case under any of his theories. The court found the contractor was not a qualified individual as in-person attendance was an essential function to carrying out his duties, despite his being able to successfully perform his job remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the three months between his request for an accommodation and subsequent termination was likely too attenuated to support a claim for retaliation, which nevertheless failed as the contractor could not prove he could perform the essential functions of his job (Hayes v. GStek, Inc., No. 25-30392 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026)).

In 2021, the contractor began work as a contract system administrator at Fort Polk. Due to the COVID pandemic, he was temporarily permitted to work remotely. In February 2022, the employer transitioned away from remote work and required the contractor to return to work in-person.

Diagnoses. Upon his return to the office, the contractor found that he was overstimulated. He was subsequently diagnosed with Autism, Major Depressive Disorder, and Social Anxiety Disorder. In August 2022, he was admitted to inpatient psychiatric care due to suicidal ideations.

Accommodation request. In October 2022, the contractor filed a physician’s note and a reasonable accommodation request asking to work remotely. The Army determined that it “would not be in the best interest of the organization to allow full-time teleworking.”

Following the Army’s determination, the employer attempted to find a compromise, allowing the contractor to work from home two or three days a week. This accommodation lasted from December 2022 to January 2023.

Termination. On January 16, the contractor suffered a “mental breakdown” and worked from home until January 19. He then informed his employer that his doctor had recommended he take a medical leave of absence. On January 23, the contractor told his employer that “he needed to work from home.” On January 24, he asked whether he needed to attend work, but received no response. He was terminated the following day due to his absenteeism and other concerns.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the contractor filed this lawsuit against his employer, asserting three claims under the ADA: failure-to-accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation. The employer filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion, ruling that the contractor had received a reasonable accommodation when the employer provided him with the accommodation of working from home two to three days per week. The district court also ruled that the contractor was not a qualified individual, even with a reasonable accommodation, and that his discrimination and retaliation claims failed because they were intertwined with his failure-to-accommodate claim. This appeal followed.

Essential function. First addressing the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court noted that the Army had determined that allowing full-time remote work was not in its interests, and as an Army contractor, the employer had a business interest in honoring the Army’s conditions. That in-person attendance was an essential function of the contractor’s job was “unsurprising,” observed the court.

“The COVID pandemic did not change the reality that in-person work is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs,” the court explained. The fact that the contractor permitted him to work remotely while temporary COVID policies were in place did not change this equation. Because COVID did not change the essential requirements of the job and the ADA’s accommodation requirement does not demand that an employer relieve an employee of any essential functions of their job, the employer was not required to allow the contractor to work remotely.

Supervisory factor. In addition, the court explained that an employer’s ability to supervise an employee is another factor that must be considered in whether a work-from-home accommodation is reasonable. The contractor acknowledged several instances in which he and his supervisor were unable to communicate effectively. Thus, permitting full-time telework was not a reasonable accommodation in these circumstances, said the court.

Not a qualified person. By the contractor’s own admission, he “needed to work from home” in order to perform the functions of his job. It was impossible for the employer to grant this accommodation request while also ensuring that the essential in-person functions of the job were being carried out. Thus, the court determined that the contractor was not a qualified person for the job, even with the employer’s accommodation allowing him to work from home part-time, affirming the district court’s dismissal of this claim.

Discrimination. So too was the result for the contractor’s disability discrimination claim. Because he did not present direct evidence of discrimination, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to this claim. Because the court had found that he was not qualified for the job, he could not establish a prima facie case for discrimination.

Retaliation. Finally, the court found the contractor had also failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation. Again applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court found no viable causal connection between the accommodation request and the termination.

Three months had elapsed between the contractor’s initial request for an accommodation and his termination, observed the court. The Supreme Court has held that a three-month interval between an employee’s protected activity and an employer’s adverse action is not sufficient evidence of causation.

Regardless, the court here determined that the contractor’s inability to perform the essential functions of his job defeated his ability to prove causation in his prima facie case for retaliation.

“Without being a qualified individual, his request for accommodation was doomed, and that failed request cannot be the basis for a retaliation claim,” concluded the court, affirming the district court’s dismissal.

The case is No. 25-30392.

Judge: Jones, E.

Attorneys: James Edward Sudduth, III (Sudduth & Associates) for Albert M. Hayes. William Palmer (Kaufman & Canoles) and Ross M. Raley (Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock) for GStek, Inc.

Companies: GStek, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation Covid19 LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews