Some workers displeased by return-to-office mandates are fighting back by taking legal action, The Washington Post reported.

As more companies insist on getting bodies back to their desks in person, an increasing number of workers are taking their objections to such mandates by filing complaints in court and with federal labor agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Workers argue that these mandates can be unjust, can discriminate against people with disabilities and may be retaliatory actions against unionization efforts. Employers argue that having workers in the office improves company culture, collaboration and productivity.

The outcomes of these cases “can have a significant impact if there’s an agency or court ruling,” said Andrew Melzer, a partner at civil rights law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp, in an interview with the Post. They could determine “what’s considered permissible.”

This past March, nearly 23 percent of workers performed their jobs remotely, at least part time, compared to 19.5 percent a year earlier, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Zacchery Belval, a 31-year-old designer from Connecticut who has congenital heart disease and severe anxiety was fired after refusing to return to the office, despite submitting several doctor’s notices about his medical need to work from home. The employer cited in-person job duties. Belval is now suing his employer in federal court.

“They just said either you come back … or you’re fired,” he said in an interview. “It was literally screaming matches with management every day saying, ‘Hey, this is about health,’ and management going, ‘We don’t care.’”

His lawyer, Peter Goselin, told the Post that the lawsuit boils down to whether working from the office is considered essential to his job and whether remote work is a “reasonable" accommodation. Two circuit courts have already ruled that remote work could be considered reasonable, the lawyer said. “Remote work "has huge significance for people with disabilities and health issues,” Goselin said.

Not all complaints center on health and disabilities. Unfair labor-practice charges have been filed with the NLRB by workers at the New York Times, the Post, Google, Cognizant, X, and Grindr, for reasons such as alleged retaliation for unionization efforts, an unlawful dismissal for publicly criticizing an office mandate, and failing to bargain over the issue. Grindr, an LGBTQ+ dating app, lost about 45 percent of its employees after it required workers to move across the country and work from assigned offices two days a week, prompting workers to file a charge with the NLRB.

Melissa Atkins, a labor and employment lawyer at Obermayer, said that her employer clients are not considering the possibility of lawsuits against them as a major factor in shaping their return-to-office policies.

“It’s a management right to change a policy,” Atkins said in an interview with the Post. Absent a collective bargaining agreement that hinges on the ability to work from home, or employers breaking contracts guaranteeing flexible work, “I can’t really see any real legal basis to challenge these policies.”

“It’s really all about power,” said Katie Marie Marschner, an Austin-based YouTube worker who was among many to get laid off when their employers, Google and Cognizant, announced an office mandate in December 2022, two months after employees filed for a union election. “So you have to organize to flex your collective power. That’s the only way out of this mess.”