Compliance Stuff

As employers increasingly require remote workers to return to the office, many aren’t sure how to handle telework accommodation requests – but new federal guidance could start providing welcome clarity for employers. The guidance is meant to help agencies determine whether remote work is a reasonable accommodation in light of President Trump’s directive for federal employees to return to the office. Although the guidance is directed toward the federal workforce, the principles align with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which applies to private employers. Here is what employers can learn from the new guidance – and five steps you can take to strengthen your disability accommodation practices related to remote work. What Happened? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a  joint technical assistance document  on February 11 with FAQs addressing telework as a disability-related accommodation for federal workers...

The First Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in  DeAngelis v. Hasbro, Inc. , is a reminder to employers that religious discrimination claims stemming from COVID-19 vaccination policies are not yet a thing of the past . Those cases continue to offer crucial insights for employers as they navigate religious accommodation requests in other contexts. 0:00 4:56 Quick Hits On January 29, 2026, the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ religious discrimination and retaliation claims arising from their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. In doing so, the First Circuit made clear that “my-body-is-my-temple arguments rooted in a plaintiff’s religious beliefs are sufficient to plead the existence of a bona fide religious belief.” Additionally, although the employees resigned their employment, the court concluded that allegations regarding the investigation of one plaintiff’s alleged failure to wear a mask at an employer-sponsored event and another plaintiff’s removal ...

Providers that rely on telehealth for Medicare patients can continue to do so as a result of an extension of the Medicare telehealth rules that were originally implemented during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“COVID”). On February 3, 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, H.R. 7148 was signed into law and, among other features, extends key components of the emergency telehealth requirements and will continue to allow for increased provider eligibility, remote care from home and relaxed site-of-service, all rules upon which providers have extensively relied since COVID . CMS extended these rules in order to provide greater flexibility and remote health care access. Providers should be aware that this extension only will last through December 31, 2027, unless Congress puts a permanent solution in place. [ View source .] Source(s): Medicare Telehealth Expansion Continues Under New Federal Extension | JD Supra . (2026). JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/medicare...

  Organizations challenging an agency’s termination of a grant or government contract based on an allegedly illegal government policy need to master a two-step dance, according to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Under the Court’s highly fractured decision in   National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association   (No. 25A103), plaintiffs challenging both the terminations of their individual government grants or contracts and the policy on which the terminations were based must generally file separate suits in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act and in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The new Tucker Act-APA two-step is complicated—indeed, Justice Jackson in dissent criticized it as a “labyrinth”—and may make it harder for litigants to obtain relief. Significantly, because the Court of Federal Claims generally lacks authority to provide equitable relief for contractual breaches, the Supreme Court...

On August 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision addressing an employer’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of remote work accommodations. The court’s decision presents a cautionary tale for employers with employees working remotely. Quick Hits On August 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision highlighting the complexities of ADA compliance in remote work accommodations, emphasizing the need for employers to substantiate claims of essential job functions and undue hardship. The court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion, finding factual disputes regarding the essential nature of in-person job functions and whether the requested remote work accommodation imposed an undue hardship. This decision underscores the importance of individualized assessments, clear documentation, and open communication when handling ADA accommodation requests, pa...