RTO Mandates and Disability: When Refusing to Return to the Office Is a Protected Right in NJ

Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have become more common as employers move away from remote work. In New Jersey, these policies can raise legal concerns when employees have medical conditions or disabilities. Problems come up when an employee cannot safely return to an in-person setting. At that point, the focus shifts to whether the employer needs to adjust the requirement.

If a disability limits an employee’s ability to return to the office, refusing an RTO mandate is protected when remote work qualifies as a reasonable accommodation.

These situations often begin with a request to continue working remotely due to a health condition. In our work at Brandon J. Broderick, we’ve seen employers treat that request as a preference or a general objection to policy. The law approaches it differently.  A blanket return-to-office policy doesn’t remove the need to consider individual circumstances.

In this guide, we discuss how accommodations relate to return-to-office mandates, how remote work requests are evaluated under state law, what employers must consider before denying them, and when to consult a disability discrimination lawyer in New Jersey.

How Remote Work and ADA Rights Interact with Return-to-Office Policies in New Jersey

Return-to-office mandates have become more common, but they don’t replace an employer’s duty to address disability-related limitations. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide accommodation to a qualified employee with a disability unless doing so creates undue hardship. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination applies broadly, covers a wide range of conditions, and expects employers to engage in an interactive process when compromise is possible.

That obligation does not disappear because a company decides to bring everyone back into the office. The focus stays on the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job with an adjustment. When that is possible, the employer has to consider it.

A return-to-office rule is often when this issue surfaces. Someone who worked remotely without issue now faces a new barrier tied to a medical condition. That shift changes the legal analysis.

These factors guide the evaluation:

• A general attendance policy does not override accommodation duties
• Disability law focuses on essential job functions, not employer preference
• New Jersey law expects employers to engage in an interactive process, not a one-sided decision
• A worker does not need to use legal language to trigger accommodation rights
• Timing matters. A denial tied closely to a request raises questions about intent

How New Jersey Treats Remote Workers

New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights has explained that employees working for New Jersey-based employers still fall under the state’s anti-discrimination protections, even if they’re working from another state. 

The Law Against Discrimination doesn’t stop at state lines when the employer is based in New Jersey.

The focus remains on the employer’s conduct, not the employee’s location. A return-to-office policy doesn’t override those protections. Each request still requires a case-by-case evaluation tied to the job and the employee’s condition. A disability discrimination attorney in New Jersey can help review how those details fit under the law.

Return-to-Office Policies and When Remote Work Qualifies as an Accommodation in NJ

Remote work isn’t a guaranteed right, but it can qualify as an accommodation. In our experience, employers often argue that physical presence is necessary, especially for jobs involving in-person interaction, hands-on duties, or immediate supervision. But when a role has been performed remotely for a significant period, this history is considered. It doesn’t control the outcome, but it is part of the overall evaluation.

Common situations where remote or hybrid work fits:

• Chronic conditions that limit mobility or make commuting difficult
• Respiratory or immune-related conditions affected by shared indoor space
• Mental health conditions triggered by crowded or high-stimulation environments
• Conditions requiring frequent treatment or rest periods during the day
• Side effects from medication that affect stamina or concentration

Employers aren’t limited to a yes-or-no decision. Other adjustments may address the same barrier. Something as simple as accessible parking can make a meaningful difference by allowing an employee to get to work safely.

Alternatives to Full Remote Work Under New Jersey Accommodation Rules

Some accommodations keep the employee connected to the office while reducing the strain tied to a disability. Examples include:

• Hybrid schedules with fewer required in-office days
• Modified start and end times to avoid peak commuting hours
• Temporary remote work during treatment or recovery
• Private or quieter workspace arrangements inside the office
• Adjustments to meeting formats, including video participation

Any adjustment still has to work in practice. An employer cannot offer something that doesn’t solve the problem. The law looks at whether the adjustment allows the employee to do the essential parts of the job.

How Remote Work Shapes Disability Rights Under Return-to-Office Policies

Remote work is no longer a temporary solution tied to the pandemic. Roughly 35% of employees continue to work from home full-time. 

But return-to-office mandates have been moving in the opposite direction. Some employers, including the federal government, require workers to return regardless of where they live or how long they have been working from home.

Around 61% of workers report higher productivity at home, while another 34% report no drop compared to in-office work. Most have adapted their environment to support that performance. About 87.5% have a dedicated workspace, and more than 81% report better work-life balance.

For many employees, remote work helps remove barriers tied to physical limitations, chronic conditions, invisible disabilities, or mental health. In 2025, about 22.8% of people with disabilities were employed. Working from home reduces exposure and makes it easier to manage symptoms during the day.

Around 66% of workers now report burnout at record levels, and stricter attendance rules can add to that pressure. For employees dealing with a disability, that added strain often affects their ability to stay in the job.

Remote work is now part of how many roles function. That shift plays a role in how accommodation requests are evaluated when return-to-office policies are enforced.

RTO and Disability Rights in New Jersey: Employer Pushback and Legal Limits

Return-to-office disputes usually come down to how employers justify saying no. They are allowed to defend their decisions, but there are limits to what counts as a valid reason.

Employers point to collaboration or workplace culture as a reason for in-person work. But the focus stays on the job and on how the employee can perform it with an adjustment. While the employee’s preference isn’t controlling, refusing to consider accommodation after a proven period of remote performance can create legal risk.

Questions about essential job functions often come up at this stage. Employers may refuse to modify certain duties by calling them essential, even when those tasks have been handled differently before. 

When a task genuinely requires in-person work, it supports the employer’s position. When it does not, the reasoning becomes less convincing. Employers may point to undue hardship, but that goes beyond inconvenience. It requires a showing of real difficulty or expense.

Common issues include:

• Calling in-office attendance essential without connecting it to actual duties
• Using general statements about teamwork instead of concrete examples
• Denying requests without exploring other options
• Making quick decisions without meaningful discussion
• Giving reasons that don’t match the documentation

Employers can ask for information related to the disability-related limitation, but it needs to stay narrow. Requests for broad records or unnecessary medical information go beyond what’s allowed. The focus should be on the limitation and how it affects the job.

Commuting vs. Workplace Barriers

Disability law does not cover every commuting situation, but some conditions directly affect a person’s ability to reach the workplace. For example:

• A condition that makes driving unsafe or not possible
• An immune system issue that makes public transportation risky
• Severe anxiety triggered by crowded transit settings

The focus is on how the condition affects the employee’s ability to reach the workplace. In building these cases, our team at Brandon J. Broderick focuses on how the limitations connect to the job. Courts and agencies look closely at the details when deciding how the law applies.

How RTO Disputes Relate to Disability Rights in New Jersey

Return-to-office conflicts turn into legal claims when the response affects an employee’s rights.

When an employer doesn’t seriously consider or provide a reasonable adjustment tied to a disability, it becomes part of the claim. If that same situation leads to discipline, reassignment, demotion, or termination, it points to disability discrimination.

Retaliation is common. Once an employee asks for an accommodation, they are protected from being penalized for it. 

Common patterns include:

• A request for remote or hybrid work was denied without real discussion
• Discipline tied to attendance shortly after the request
• New performance issues following a strong work history
• Policies are enforced more strictly against one employee
• Changing explanations from the employer

When the Record and Timeline Point to Disability Discrimination

In our experience, cases about disability discrimination come down to records and timing. Strong evidence includes:

• Emails or messages showing how the request was handled
• Performance reviews from before and after the RTO policy
• Records of remote work performance
• Written policies on attendance and accommodation
• Notes from meetings or HR communications

A clear timeline makes a difference. When a request is followed quickly by denial and discipline, it raises questions about motive. The law looks at the steps the employer took to find a meaningful solution.

If you’re facing this kind of situation, it’s worth taking the next step. 

Contact us today for a free consultation.