RECENT EEOC DEVELOPMENTS: TELEWORK ACCOMMODATION GUIDANCE AND HARASSMENT GUIDANCE RESCISSION

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued significant guidance and has taken significant regulatory action. On February 11, 2026, the EEOC released frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. Separately, on January 22, 2026, the Commission voted to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. Although these developments arise in different contexts, both affect how PEOs and their clients navigate disability accommodation requests and harassment-prevention obligations.

TELEWORK ACCOMMODATION GUIDANCE

On February 11, 2026, the EEOC published guidance titled “Frequently Asked Questions from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities.” Although the FAQs target federal agencies implementing President Trump’s return-to-office directive, they track the ADA’s reasonable-accommodation framework for private employers, including the statutory duty to provide reasonable accommodations absent undue hardship. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(b)(5)(A), 12111(9)–(10); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) (defining “reasonable accommodation”).

Here are key components of the guidance.

Telework Must Serve a Legitimate Accommodation Purpose

The guidance explains that telework qualifies as a reasonable accommodation only when it enables an employee to participate in the application process, perform essential job functions, or access equal benefits and privileges of employment. Requests based solely on symptom mitigation or personal preference—without a demonstrated nexus to essential functions or equal workplace benefits—generally do not establish entitlement to telework as an accommodation under the ADA’s reasonable-accommodation standard.

Employers May Select Alternative Accommodations

When multiple effective accommodations exist, employers retain discretion to choose among them, even if telework is the employee’s stated preference. Alternatives may include assistive technology, environmental modifications, job restructuring, or modified schedules. Employers are not obligated to provide the specific accommodation an employee requests so long as the selected alternative is effective and does not impose an undue hardship.

Existing Telework Arrangements May Be Reevaluated

Employers may periodically reassess telework accommodations based on changes to an employee’s medical condition, job duties, operational needs, or applicable law. Consistent with the ADA’s individualized-assessment approach, employers may request reasonable medical documentation when the disability and/or need for accommodation is not obvious, and they may adjust or discontinue an accommodation if it is no longer needed or if it would impose an undue hardship.

In-Person Attendance May Be an Essential Function

The guidance confirms that temporary pandemic-era telework arrangements did not permanently alter a position’s essential functions. Determining whether in-person presence is essential requires a case-specific assessment that considers the employer’s judgment and written job descriptions, as well as incumbents’ actual work experience. The ADA does not require an employer to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation, so the essential-functions analysis often drives whether telework is feasible. Employers should pay particular attention to interactive roles involving supervision, collaboration, and teamwork.

Commute Difficulties Generally Do Not Warrant Telework

Employers typically have no obligation to accommodate an employee’s commute. However, depending on the facts, employers may need to consider accommodations that address workplace barriers related to commuting (e.g., modified schedules or temporary telework) where they enable performance of essential functions or equal access to workplace benefits and do not impose undue hardship.

Noncompliance May Be Disciplined

Employees who refuse to report to the office after an employer properly denies or rescinds telework may face discipline consistent with the employer’s attendance policies. Before imposing discipline, employers should ensure the employee understands the decision and invite discussion of in-office alternatives.

RESCISSION OF THE 2024 HARASSMENT GUIDANCE

On December 29, 2025, the EEOC submitted a request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) within the Office of Management and Budget as part of its process to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The Biden Administration issued the guidance, which provided detailed direction and real-world examples of what does—and does not—constitute workplace harassment.

This rescission effort followed developments earlier in 2025. In May 2025, after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated nationwide portions of the guidance addressing harassment based on gender identity, the EEOC annotated the online document to reflect the vacated sections. At that point, the Commission lacked a quorum and could not formally rescind or revise the guidance. In October 2025, quorum was restored and allowed the Commission to proceed.

The January 22 Vote

On January 22, 2026, the EEOC met and voted 2–1 to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Panuccio voted in favor of rescission, while Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal dissented. The Commission acted without a notice-and-comment period and removed the guidance from its website after the vote.

Key Context

The 2024 Harassment Guidance consolidated prior EEOC materials and addressed contemporary issues, including digital harassment and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for sexual orientation and gender identity. The May 2025 court ruling vacated only the LGBTQ-related portions of the guidance, but the 2026 rescission removes the guidance in its entirety—not solely the sections the Court vacated.

Practical Effect

The rescission has limited immediate legal impact because EEOC guidance is sub-regulatory and does not bind courts. Federal anti-harassment statutes and controlling case law remain in force, and courts—not the EEOC—ultimately determine Title VII’s scope. State and local civil rights laws prohibiting harassment continue to apply regardless of EEOC guidance.

Critically, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock remains controlling precedent and establishes that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court also noted that certain related issues (including sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms) were not before it. Id. Harassment remained the most frequently alleged claim in the EEOC’s FY 2024 charge docket, and the agency will continue to investigate and seek remedies for valid harassment claims despite the rescission.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PEOS

PEOs should consider the following in light of these developments.

With respect to telework accommodations, PEOs should review existing remote work arrangements that they granted as disability accommodations and assess whether those arrangements remain necessary and appropriate. When evaluating new requests, PEOs should engage in the interactive process and recognize that telework is one of several potential accommodations—not a default entitlement. Documenting the business necessity for in-person attendance, particularly for collaborative or supervisory roles, will support defensible decision-making.

With respect to harassment prevention, PEOs should not interpret the rescission as a signal to relax anti-harassment policies or training programs. Title VII’s prohibitions remain fully enforceable, and Bostock continues to require coverage of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. PEOs operating in multiple jurisdictions should also remain attentive to state and local laws that may provide broader protections than federal law.

This article is designed to give general and timely information about the subjects covered. It is not intended as legal advice or assistance with individual problems. Readers should consult competent counsel of their own choosing about how the matters relate to their own affairs.