A recent decision from the Third Circuit provides some critical guidance on the standards for analyzing post-pandemic remote-work accommodation requests under the Rehabilitation Act (RA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) frameworks. In Gardner v. Kutztown University, (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2026) (No. 25-1295), the Third Circuit vacated a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employee who was denied remote-work accommodations. In doing so, the court held that whether in-person presence constitutes an “essential function” of a job is a question of fact that must be decided by a jury rather than determined by a judge as a matter of law.
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to state emergency health orders, Kutztown University (KU) permitted faculty to teach and hold office hours remotely pursuant to state emergency health orders. Plaintiff Carolyn Gardner, an Associate Professor who was diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune condition in December 2020, taught remotely and subsequently took Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.
During the Fall 2021 semester, in preparing to reopen the campus for full in-person instruction, the administration instituted a policy that converting in-person classes to online formats was not a reasonable accommodation. However, KU’s governing written policy, Policy DIV-002, required that formal accommodation requests for documented disabilities be evaluated individually, submitted to the Director of Disability Services, and sent to the HR Director, who determines whether the requested accommodation is reasonable.
Subsequently, Gardner submitted formal accommodation requests to teach her in-person courses remotely for four consecutive semesters (Fall 2021 through Spring 2023). In response, KU either did not respond to these requests or denied them, relying on its newly implemented policy that requests to make in-person classes remote were a “fundamental alteration.” However, KU did offer alternative accommodations such as plexiglass podiums, face shields, reduced class sizes, and classroom air filtration improvements. Gardner rejected these proposed accommodations and filed suit under Section 504 of the RA, alleging failure to accommodate, intentional discrimination, use of facially discriminatory policies, disparate impact, and unlawful interference.
District Court Ruling
The District Court determined as a matter of law that physical in-person presence was not an essential function of Gardner’s faculty position. Based on that conclusion, the trial court entered summary judgment for Gardner on her failure to accommodate direct and circumstantial intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and interference claims. The District Court granted summary judgment to KU only with respect to the Spring 2023 semester when KU offered extensive physical modifications to the classroom.
Third Circuit Decision
On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the majority of the District Court’s rulings, reversed a number of key counts and remanded the case for trial after finding that material issues of fact existed. In doing so, the Court recognized that the parties disputed whether teaching students and holding in person office hours were “essential functions” of Gardner’s role and whether Gardner’s request for full-time remote work was a “reasonable accommodation.” The court emphasize that resolving this dispute requires weighing competing evidence which a court could not undertake at the summary judgment stage. For example, while KU presented evidence that distance learning accounted for a small number of its courses and that it had never hired full-time faculty exclusively online, Gardner pointed to a Collective Bargaining Agreement referencing effective teaching, scholarship, and service without any requirement that those duties be performed in-person. As such, it was a factual issue for the jury to determine whether in-person teaching was an essential requirement of Gardner’s position, despite the lack of a formal written policy or job description stating so.
The record further revealed that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether KU properly engaged in the interactive accommodation process with Gardner in the Fall of 2021, Spring of 2022 and Fall of 2022. Notwithstanding these reversals, the court affirmed the summary judgment entered in KU’s favor for the Spring 2023 semester because KU offered to construct a classroom with limited student capacity, a separate entrance, specialized air filters, and a plexiglass podium compliant with the Americans Disabilities Act (ADA). No reasonable juror could conclude that KU’s proposed accommodation was not a reasonable means to accommodate Gardner’s need to minimize her risk of exposure to illness. Thus, the court confirmed that an employer’s obligation is only to provide an accommodation that is reasonable in and of itself, not the accommodation that “is the most reasonable or the employees prefer[ence].”
The Third Circuit also reversed summary judgment for Gardner and denied KU’s cross motion for summary judgment on Gardner’s claim that KU’s unofficial policy requiring full in-person teaching and office hours disparately impacts her as a disabled individual. The court noted that as a plaintiff seeking to prove disparate impact, Gardner was required to present comparative evidence showing that KU’s no remote work policy disproportionally impacted her as a disabled individual which she failed to do.
With regard to Gardner’s interference claim, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on Gardner’s claim that KU interfered with her ability to enjoy her protected rights under the ADA by denying her remote-work accommodation requests. The Third Circuit rejected the District Court’s conclusion that as of Fall 2021, KU’s blanket decision to deny all employees’ remote-teaching requests constituted “meddling” with Gardner’s statutory ability to seek a reasonable accommodation.
Takeaways
This decision reinforces several key principles for employers and employees with respect to workplace accommodations. In the first instance, an employee is not entitled to their preferred accommodation if an effective alternative accommodation mitigates their disability and enables them to do their job and perform the essential functions. Second, there is no one-size-fits-all-approach, every request for accommodation requires an individual assessment based upon the specific facts and circumstances.
Moreover, employers should not automatically assume that courts will declare in-person presence an “essential function” as a matter of law, even in higher education or client-facing roles. Courts instruct jurors as finders of fact to weigh factors such as job descriptions, past remote practices, and collective bargaining agreements. Blanket denials or generic policies banning remote work create significant legal risk. Employers must engage in a documented, good-faith interactive process for every formal request.