COVID-19 May Qualify as an ADA-recognized Disability

January 7, 2022
Alexander J. Cerbo

As COVID-19 continues to grow, mutate, and spread like a California wildfire, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released guidance which outlines, in detail, just how COVID-19 may qualify as a ‘disability’ under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In its recent report, the EEOC clarifies that employees who are either asymptomatic or have mild COVID symptoms that resolve in a matter of weeks are not considered disabled under the ADA. These cases are not found to substantially limit a major life activity as they do not restrict an employee’s bodily functions for a prolonged period.


However, ‘long COVID,’ or cases that persist for several weeks or even months after the initial infection, may qualify as an ADA-recognized disability. Symptoms include ongoing fatigue, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, difficulty breathing, or shortness of breath. In addition, other health conditions caused by COVID, or pre-existing health conditions exacerbated by COVID (such as heart inflammation), are considered a disability if they limit a major life activity.


The EEOC cautions that a determination as to whether an employee’s COVID-19 case constitutes a disability should always be made on a case-by-case basis.


While employers should be mindful as to how they handle employees with COVID, the ADA does provide employers with a ‘direct-threat’ defense by which an employer may require an employee with COVID, or its symptoms, to refrain from physically entering the workplace during the CDC-recommended period of isolation. An employer will risk violating the ADA if they exclude an employee from the workplace based upon “myths, fears, or stereotypes,” particularly if the individual is no longer infectious.


EEOC guidance is clear that an employer does not automatically violate the ADA in taking adverse action against an employee if they have COVID-19. Employees must meet the criteria of an ‘actual’ or ‘record of’ disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation. An actual disability is a “physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity.” Record of a disability is when the person has a history of that disability.

Eligible employees are not automatically granted a reasonable accommodation — their disability must require it, and the accommodation requested must not pose an undue hardship on the employer. Employers may also request supporting medical documentation in determining whether to grant an employee’s accommodation request.

With COVID-19 cases on the rise once again, and the inception of the new, highly contagious Omicron variant, employers should continue to remain alert for future guidance from the federal government in this ever-evolving pandemic.


Alexander J. Cerbo, Esq. is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council; (413) 586 2288;  acerbo@theroyallawfirm.com


This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click here to read!

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.