In a time when remote work has become the norm for many, one recent lawsuit against professional services firm Aon has highlighted a growing but often overlooked issue — not everyone thrives while working from home. For employees with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), the rise of remote and hybrid work can sometimes create new challenges rather than solutions.
In July 2025, a former Aon employee filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired after requesting an accommodation to work in the office full time — a request she made specifically because of her ADHD. The case, Gomez v. Aon Private Risk Management Insurance Agency, Inc., raises important questions about what “reasonable accommodation” really means in a post-pandemic work culture that increasingly assumes remote work is the ideal setup.
The Lawsuit: When Accommodation Turns Into Discrimination
According to the lawsuit, the employee worked as an account specialist and was initially told by a recruiter that she could work in-office full time — a setup she believed would best support her focus and productivity. However, after being hired, she was informed the position would mostly be remote.
Because her ADHD made it difficult to stay on task and absorb new information in a home environment, she struggled to perform effectively. When she reached out to her manager for support, she was allegedly told that the role might not be a “fit” for her and was placed on a performance improvement plan.
After formally requesting an accommodation to work in the office and providing medical documentation, the request was finally approved — but only briefly. According to the complaint, she was terminated shortly after beginning the approved arrangement, leading her to allege disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Aon has not publicly commented on the case.
The Broader Issue: Not All Disabilities Require the Same Type of Flexibility
When most people think of “workplace accommodations,” they often imagine requests to work from home. In fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long recognized remote work as a potential reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
However, the Aon case presents an interesting reversal — it’s about an employee who needed to work in the office for her disability. For people with ADHD, the home environment can be filled with distractions that make concentration nearly impossible. The lack of structure, social accountability, and physical separation between “work” and “home” can amplify symptoms like forgetfulness, difficulty sustaining attention, and problems with task initiation.
For many, an office setting provides crucial external structure: a consistent routine, fewer interruptions, and the energizing presence of coworkers. In other words, flexibility should go both ways — and that’s where some employers fall short.
Understanding the ADA and the “Interactive Process”
Under the ADA, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities — as long as doing so doesn’t cause “undue hardship” to the business. This doesn’t mean granting every request exactly as proposed, but it does require an interactive process — a genuine, two-way discussion between the employer and employee about what support is needed and what solutions are possible.
Failing to engage in this process can be costly. In 2024, Wells Fargo was ordered to pay $22.1 million after allegedly denying a director’s accommodation request without properly exploring alternatives. The director had requested to work from home because of a medical condition requiring immediate restroom access; his role was eliminated before the issue was resolved.
The court found there was a legitimate question about whether the company had truly engaged in meaningful dialogue — a warning sign for employers everywhere.
When Policies Get in the Way of People
The Aon case isn’t unique. Policies that seem “fair” on paper can unintentionally exclude those with disabilities. For example, a few years ago, three City of Berkeley commission members with disabilities asked to attend meetings remotely. The city agreed — but only if they publicly listed their home addresses and allowed the public inside to attend, as required by state open-meeting laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Berkeley for violating the ADA, and the city eventually changed its policy to waive those requirements for disability-related concerns.
These examples show how well-intentioned rules can quickly become barriers when they don’t leave room for individualized needs.
ADHD and the Modern Workplace
This case also highlights a growing tension between neurodivergent employees and workplace expectations. While awareness of ADHD has increased dramatically in recent years, understanding of how it actually affects work performance remains limited.
People with ADHD often have unique strengths — creativity, problem-solving skills, and high energy — but may also struggle with sustained focus, executive functioning, and time management. For some, remote work provides relief from overstimulating environments. For others, it’s isolating and disorganizing.
The key takeaway? There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
Moving Toward True Inclusion
Employers can take several steps to ensure fairness and compliance:
- Engage early and openly when an employee requests an accommodation.
- Avoid assumptions about what works best for someone based on general trends (like assuming remote work is always preferable).
- Document and review every step of the accommodation process to ensure transparency.
- Train managers to recognize and respond appropriately to disability disclosure.
Workplace flexibility isn’t just about where employees work — it’s about how they’re supported to do their best work. As this lawsuit unfolds, it serves as a powerful reminder that inclusion means listening, adapting, and remembering that every mind works differently.
.svg)
.svg)
