Accommodations for Employees with Long COVID

March 30, 2023

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Long COVID can be considered a disability. The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) has offered guidance as to what on-the-job accommodations an employer can offer to workers affected by Long COVID.


Long COVID symptoms you experience may be any or all of the following (According to the Job Accommodation Network):

  • Shortness of breath;
  • Extreme fatigue;
  • Brain fog;
  • Insomnia;
  • Tachycardia;
  • Joint pain;
  • Body aches;
  • Headaches


A series of suggestions as to how to help accommodate employees who are sufferers of Long COVID include:

  • Restructuring the job;
  • Allowing rest breaks;
  • Providing a quiet workspace;
  • Flexible schedules;
  • Telework;
  • Leave for treatment.


JAN has recommended that employers spend more time assessing what accommodations may be practicable within their work environment rather than assessing whether the employee has Long COVID. This is because the diagnosis of Long COVID seemingly takes time. Also, while receiving treatment for various symptoms of the disorder, an employee may still not yet be formally diagnosed. Additionally, an employee is not required to have a formal diagnosis in order to request accommodation(s). Instead, an employee only needs a healthcare provider to document that the employee possesses an impairment that affects their daily activities, in order to request accommodations.


Moreover, accommodations should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Employers should avoid the implementation of a one-size-fits-all solution for employees suffering from Long COVID.


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.

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.