Prior to March, 2020, individuals with disabilities faced challenges when requesting remote work as an accommodation for a physical or mental disorder. Employers were slow to agree to such requests and courts were slow to find that requested remote work accommodations were “reasonable accommodations,” even for office positions not necessarily requiring extensive in-office presence or personal interaction. Decisions frequently cited assumptions and concerns about the cost and feasibility of necessary technology, disruption of the workplace, difficulties overseeing and supervising off-site workers, and what employers and courts viewed as the inherently “in-person” nature of work. The events of 2020 through the present raise timely and important questions about how courts and agencies will and should evaluate remote work accommodation requests going forward —and how employers should modify or refine their ADA accommodation processes for purposes of legal compliance and alignment to mission. This issue is important to higher education, and particularly to brick-and-mortar campuses seeking to resume in-person learning. Because of the strong strategic emphasis on a return to “in person” learning, many such institutions may find themselves having a strong preference for a full “return” on the part of employees, may view remote work as a now-withdrawn “benefit” offered on an emergency basis, and may be reluctant to consider remote work even for individuals with a disability. In simplest terms, the question raised by these situations is whether and how the status of remote work has changed because of the shifting realities of the past few years—and what campuses should do to comply with the law while balancing their significant interest and overarching need to serve students on campus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]