As Minnesota’s cabin season kicks into high gear, employers may find themselves fielding a familiar request: “Can I work remotely?” For many employees, the ask is simply a lifestyle preference—a desire to swap the office for a deck overlooking the water. But for others, the request may be rooted in a medical condition that makes commuting or working on-site difficult. With respect to the latter, employers need to recognize that what sounds like a casual summer plan may actually be a request for a reasonable accommodation under disability discrimination law.
Remote Work as a reasonable accommodation
Under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), employers have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Remote work has long been recognized as a potential reasonable accommodation, particularly when an employee’s essential job functions can be performed from a location other than the employer’s premises.
The question is rarely whether remote work can be an accommodation—it’s whether it’s reasonable under the circumstances. Factors like the nature of the job, the employer’s operational needs, and the employee’s specific limitations all play a role. An employee whose disability makes a daily commute painful or medically inadvisable, for example, may be entitled to work remotely, even if the rest of the team is expected to be on-site. The fact that the employee happens to be working from a cabin on Gull Lake rather than a home office in the suburbs doesn’t, by itself, change the analysis.
Minnesota’s New Interactive Process Requirements
Employers in Minnesota should pay particular attention to recent amendments to the MHRA, which now imposes more specific obligations around the interactive process. Under the amended statute, when an employee requests an accommodation—or when you have reason to know that one may be needed—you must engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to identify an effective accommodation. For some managers and supervisors, it feels like it should change the analysis.
The amendments clarify that the interactive process isn’t optional and isn’t merely a best practice. It’s a legal obligation. An employer that simply denies a remote work request without engaging in the back-and-forth required by the statute risks liability, even if a legitimate business reason for the denial exists. The law expects a dialogue, not a unilateral decision.
This is particularly relevant in the summer remote work context. An employee who says “I’d like to work from the cabin this summer because my chronic pain flares up with the commute” has arguably put you on notice that an accommodation may be needed. You can’t simply say “no” and move on. Instead, you must engage with the employee, discuss alternatives, and genuinely evaluate the request.
Practical Tips for Employers
As the summer months approach and accommodation requests arrive—whether framed casually or formally—you should keep the following principles in mind:
First, treat any request that references a medical condition or limitation as a potential accommodation request, regardless of how it’s worded. Employees aren’t required to use magic words like “reasonable accommodation” or “ADA” to trigger your obligations.
Second, engage in the interactive process promptly and in good faith. Ask questions, request supporting medical documentation when appropriate, and explore whether remote work—or some hybrid arrangement—would allow the employee to perform the essential job functions.
Third, evaluate the request on its merits. The fact that an employee wants to work from a vacation property doesn’t make the request frivolous. If the employee has a qualifying disability and can perform the essential job functions remotely, the location of the remote workspace is generally not your concern, so long as the employee remains available, productive, and in compliance with any applicable policies regarding data security, responsiveness, and work hours.
Fourth, push back when appropriate. Depending on the circumstances, you may have opportunities to collect information about the accommodation request (including medical documentation) and explore its medical necessity. But this must be done carefully so you don’t unintentionally create legal risk.
Conclusion
It’s beyond question that summer at the cabin is a Minnesota tradition. For some employees, working remotely during the warmer months is a matter of convenience; for others, it’s a matter of medical necessity. If you fail to distinguish between the two—or dismiss accommodation requests without engaging in the interactive process now required under the MHRA—you expose yourself to legal risk. The best approach is a familiar one: Listen, engage, and make individualized assessments grounded in the specific facts of each situation. As always, reach out to our team if you have questions or need advice and counsel relating to these issues.
Brian Benkstein is an attorney with Felhaber Larson in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and can be reached at bbenkstein@felhaber.com.