In a new ruling that will shape post-pandemic workplace rights in California, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employees do not have a right to work from home just because they prefer it—especially in the absence of a medically documented disability.
The case, Allos v. Poway Unified School District (2025 WL 1864797), involved a senior systems analyst who refused to return to in-person work after the state’s COVID-19 stay-at-home order ended. Her employer accommodated her for months—but eventually required her return.
When she refused, retired, and sued, the Court sided with the employer—clarifying that disability law protects those with actual medical impairments, not subjective fear or preference.
Case Overview: What Happened?
Kheloud Allos worked for Poway Unified School District as a senior business systems analyst. She worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and requested to continue working from home permanently, citing concerns over:
- A past allergic reaction to a Tdap vaccine
- Fear of developing a reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine
- High blood pressure
- Family caregiving responsibilities
She argued that returning to work would endanger her health and claimed protections under:
- California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
- Labor Code §§ 6400–6401, requiring a safe and healthful workplace
When the district required her to return in late 2020, she refused and eventually retired. She later sued for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide a safe workplace.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the district—and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The Court’s Key Findings
1. Public Employers Have Immunity for COVID-19 Safety Decisions
Under California Government Code § 855.4, public entities are immune from liability for discretionary decisions made in response to public health risks.
- The court ruled that PUSD’s return-to-work directive fell within this protection.
- Even if the policy had unintended consequences, the law shields decisions made to control disease.
Translation: A public agency can require employees to return to work unless it violates another legal duty—like refusing a legitimate disability accommodation.
2. Fear of Exposure or Self-Diagnosed Allergies ≠ Disability
Allos provided no medical documentation showing:
- That she was actually disabled, or
- That she had a medically verified reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccination
The court held:
- A suspected allergy or personal concern is not a disability under FEHA.
- The law requires a documented, substantial limitation of a major life activity—not speculation.
“An employee’s fear of potential illness—without medical backing—is not enough to demand remote work.”
3. No Failure to Accommodate Where the Employer Tried
The District:
- Held six interactive process meetings
- Offered alternate work sites, masking, spacing, and other precautions
- Never disciplined or terminated Allos
She chose to retire and declined the offered accommodations.
That’s not retaliation or failure to accommodate—it’s the employer doing what the law requires.
What This Means for California Workers
You Can Request Remote Work—but It Must Be Based on a Real Disability
Under FEHA, an employer must:
- Provide reasonable accommodations for workers with documented disabilities
- Engage in the interactive process to find a workable solution
But:
- Remote work is not automatically “reasonable”
- Employers do not have to offer your preferred accommodation—just a reasonable one
Subjective fear, unsupported diagnoses, or personal beliefs about safety do not qualify as legal grounds for a remote work demand.
Legal Takeaways from Allos
| Issue | Court’s Holding |
|---|---|
| Right to Work Remotely | No automatic right absent real disability |
| FEHA Disability | Must be medically verified and substantial |
| Gov’t Immunity (Public Employers) | Applies to pandemic-related decisions |
| Failure to Accommodate | Employer made good faith efforts |
| Retaliation / Constructive Discharge | No adverse action—employee retired |
Key Lessons for Workers
If you’re requesting remote work based on a disability, make sure you:
- Have clear medical documentation
- Participate in the interactive process
- Are open to other options besides remote work (e.g., adjusted schedule, PPE, modified duties)
And if your employer offers a reasonable, safe accommodation and you decline, you may forfeit legal protections.
Bottom Line
Allos v. Poway Unified School District is a major win for common-sense employer policies—and a warning to workers that remote work is not protected unless it’s truly medically necessary.
At Employees First Labor Law, we support workers with legitimate health conditions who are being ignored, punished, or forced into unsafe work. But we also help clients understand where the law draws the line.
If You’ve Been Denied a Legitimate Accommodation, We Can Help
If your doctor recommended changes to your work—but your employer isn’t listening—contact us. We’ll help you protect your health, your rights, and your job.
We’re Ready to Help
At Employees First Labor Law, we fight for workers who’ve been exploited, underpaid, or retaliated against. With this new era of enforcement, your voice matters more than ever—and we’re here to make sure you’re heard.
At Employees First Labor Law, we fight for workers across California to make sure your rights are respected, your body is protected, and your benefits are maximized.
