Third Circuit Rules Remote Work as ADA Accommodation is a Jury Question, Striking Down Blanket Denials

Kutztown University administrators concluded in 2021 that converting any in-person class to a remote format constituted a "fundamental alteration" of its academic program, categorically denying a professor's request to teach from home. On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismantled that blanket defense, ruling in Gardner v. Kutztown University that whether physical presence is an "essential function" of a job is a factual dispute for a jury to decide, not a matter of law for an employer to declare.[1][2]

The decision resets the legal baseline for post-pandemic workplace accommodations across the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. Associate Professor Carolyn Gardner, diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune condition in December 2020, had requested to move her scheduled in-person courses online for four consecutive semesters while adjusting to immunosuppressive medication.[2][4]

When the university mandated a return to full in-person instruction for the Fall 2021 semester, it either denied or ignored Gardner's formal requests, arguing that remote teaching fundamentally altered the university's offerings. A federal district court initially granted summary judgment largely in Gardner's favor, declaring that the university's blanket policy "clearly meddled" with her statutory rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.[1][4]

The Third Circuit vacated the bulk of that lower court victory, determining that judges cannot bypass a jury to decide whether an accommodation is reasonable. The appellate panel ruled that evaluating Gardner's failure-to-accommodate claims for the Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall 2022 semesters requires weighing competing evidence about the interactive process—a task strictly reserved for a factfinder at trial.[2][4]

However, the ruling also delivered a concrete boundary for employees seeking remote work: employers are not required to grant a worker's preferred accommodation if they can provide an effective in-person alternative. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kutztown University regarding the Spring 2023 semester, during which the administration offered a highly specific physical setup rather than a flat denial.[1][2]

For that fourth semester, the university proposed placing Gardner in a classroom with limited student capacity, a separate entrance, enhanced air filtering, and a plexiglass podium where she would wear a face shield. Gardner rejected the setup, insisting that only full remote instruction could adequately minimize her risk of exposure to illness.[1][3]

The appellate court found the university's physical mitigation measures legally sufficient. "An employer's obligation is only to provide an accommodation that is reasonable in and of itself," the court wrote, "not the accommodation that 'is the most reasonable or the employee's prefer[ence].'" Because no reasonable juror could find the Spring 2023 classroom setup unreasonable, the university fulfilled its statutory duty for that period.[2][3]

For corporate and academic human resources departments, the docket 25-1295 decision illustrates the exact cost of inflexible return-to-office mandates. Blanket policies that reflexively classify remote work as an undue hardship invite costly jury trials, while individualized, documented alternative accommodations can successfully resolve federal discrimination claims before they reach a courtroom.[1][3]