Hybrid Working Policies, Reasonable Accommodation, and Staff with Disabilities: A Case Study of European Universities

Abstract

The post-pandemic world has seen a large shift to hybrid working, including for staff at European universities. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, European Union law, and the related non-discrimination law of the EU Member States, employers are obliged to provide reasonable accommodations to staff members with a disability, including allowing them to work on a hybrid basis and providing additional support to facilitate this where this is needed for a disability-related reason. Hybrid working potentially offers a number of advantages for persons with disabilities, including increased flexibility and autonomy, reduced need for commuting, and generally allowing staff to arrange their work around health-related limitations. Universities now usually have policies on hybrid working. This article considers whether and how hybrid working policies at seven European universities address the specific situation of persons with disabilities. It reveals a diversity of approaches, including policies in which staff with disabilities are ‘invisible’ and policies that pay significant attention to ensuring that staff with disabilities are able to benefit from hybrid working and are provided with suitable accommodations. It argues that university hybrid working policies should address the situation of staff with disabilities and make explicit links with the duty to provide reasonable accommodation.

1. Introduction

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, hybrid working, whereby workers work remotely, typically from home, for part of their working hours, has become a standard working practice in many workplaces.1 This has prompted employers, including universities, to adopt formalised policies setting out the conditions under which staff may work from home. This new openness to hybrid working dovetails with the European Union’s efforts to promote a work-life balance. The 2019 Work--Life Balance Directive (European Union 2019) establishes, inter alia, a right for workers to request flexible working arrangements, which includes hybrid working in certain situations. Under the Work–Life Balance Directive, workers can request such arrangements to facilitate the combination of work and caring tasks. More generally, several European states, such as the Netherlands, recognise a broader right to request flexible working arrangements that is not limited to carers2, and, even in the absence of legal requirements, employers in many countries now frequently allow workers to spend some time working from home without this being linked to caring tasks.

Hybrid working can benefit a wide range of workers for a variety of reasons. In addition to workers with caring tasks, who are the group identified in the Work-Life Balance Directive in the context of flexible working, one particular group of workers who can benefit are workers with disabilities (Taylor et al. 2022, p. 8). These workers can benefit in particular from increased autonomy and control and greater flexibility when working from home. Working from home can also relieve workers with disabilities from the need to make tiring and uncomfortable commutes to work, allow them to take short rests in a comfortable (home) environment when needed, and make it easier to combine work and medical treatment or rehabilitation, where those services are provided close to home. Moreover, the home environment may be more physically accessible than the usual workplace, thereby making it easier for such workers to carry out their tasks.3 Nevertheless, hybrid working and working from home can also present challenges for some workers with disabilities, and such workers sometimes need non-standard agreements or arrangements regarding hybrid work if they are to benefit from this practice, or alternatively, they need to work wholly on-site.

This article explores the obligation to provide hybrid working arrangements for workers with disabilities. While the Work-Life Balance Directive provides the framework for requesting flexible working arrangements for care-related reasons under EU law, the Employment Equality Directive (European Community 2000) prohibits discrimination against workers on the ground of disability and requires that reasonable accommodation be made for workers with a disability. This can include allowing hybrid work as a disability-specific accommodation as such and/or taking additional steps to allow a worker with a disability to work comfortably, safely, and effectively on a hybrid basis. While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations 2006), to which the EU and its Member States are parties, does not address hybrid working explicitly, it does address various rights related to work and employment in Article 27, and similar to EU law, it establishes an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

2. Methods

This article begins by exploring the relevance of the CRPD and the Employment Equality Directive for hybrid working arrangements for staff with disabilities. The Work-Life Balance Directive, which focuses on workers with caring tasks in the context of flexible work, is not explicitly targeted at workers with disabilities, although they do fall within the personal scope of the flexible working provisions when they undertake caring tasks. For this reason, the Work-Life Balance Directive is not discussed further in this article. This part of the research employs a legal-dogmatic approach, focusing on the analysis of legal sources.

The article then draws on a range of literature exploring hybrid work and persons with disabilities and considers how hybrid work can benefit workers with disabilities while also acknowledging the risks of working from home for this group of workers. The paper proceeds to reflect on the importance of providing reasonable accommodation for workers with disabilities engaged in hybrid work, identifying a range of different accommodations that can be required. Then, it examines and compares a number of hybrid working policies from a variety of universities in several Western European states, with a particular focus on identifying how they address the situation of workers with disabilities. The paper, therefore, also uses a comparative method, assessing the various hybrid working policies based on how they address the situation of workers with disabilities and the elements needed if they are to benefit from, or not be disadvantaged by, hybrid work. The paper also makes comparisons between the policies themselves.

This article is written within the framework of the LAW-Balance research project, and the university policies concerning hybrid working that are examined in this paper come from the institutions that are involved in the project. This project aims to provide a better understanding of the legal framework of working life in transition and to develop knowledge on how law can function as an instrument to achieve an inclusive working life. The project is coordinated by the University of Bergen and involves academics from a number of universities in Western Europe. This means that the paper explores hybrid working policies from universities in Germany (Trier University), Ireland (Trinity College Dublin), the Netherlands (Maastricht University), Norway (University of Bergen, University of Oslo, and Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet)), and the United Kingdom (University College London (UCL)). A limitation of this paper is, therefore, that it is confined to examining the policies of seven universities in Northwestern Europe. An analysis of comparable policies (where they exist) of universities in other parts of Europe and beyond Europe may reveal differing approaches to workers with disabilities and hybrid work and could supplement this research.

3. EU Law, the CRPD, the Reasonable Accommodation Duty, and Hybrid Working

The Employment Equality Directive prohibits disability discrimination, as well as discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation, and age, in the fields of employment and vocational training. For the purposes of this paper, it is significant that the Work-Life Balance Directive establishes the duty to provide reasonable accommodation with regard to persons with disabilities in Article 5. That article provides:

In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.

The obligation to make reasonable accommodation on the grounds of disability is based on the recognition that, on occasion, the interaction between an individual’s impairment and the physical or social environment can result in the inability to perform a particular function, job, or activity in a conventional manner. The characteristic of impairment is relevant in that it can lead to an individual being faced with a barrier that prevents him or her from benefiting from an employment or other opportunity that is open to others who do not share that characteristic. This barrier can be removed through an individualised and tailored reasonable accommodation.4

Recital 20 of the Work-Life Balance Directive provides some guidance on what amounts to an accommodation. It states:

appropriate measures should be provided, i.e., effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example, adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks, or the provision of training and integration resources.

This list of possible reasonable accommodation measures is illustrative, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recognised that actions not listed here can also amount to an accommodation. Accommodation measures specifically recognised by the Court include reducing working time (Case C-335/11 and Case C-337/11, HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), reassignment of tasks (Case C-397/18, DW v Nobel Plastiques and Case C-824/19, TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA), and appointment to a completely new position (Case C-485/20 HR Rail SA). These are all procedural measures. The Court has also recognised that the provision of assistive devices (Case C-795/19, Tartu Vangla, and Case C-824/19, TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA) and providing personal assistance (Case C-824/19, TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA) can amount to accommodation measures. Broderick and Watson argue that the concept of reasonable accommodation under the Directive is broad and that ‘in essence, any measure that can assist a person with a disability to take up employment and pursue it on equal terms with workers without disabilities is required’ (Broderick and Watson 2020, p. 129). Allowing hybrid working for a worker with a disability when this is not permitted for other staff or making different arrangements for hybrid working with a staff member with a disability compared to a staff member without a disability is an accommodation that involves a change to procedures, while providing that staff member with additional or specialised equipment that allows them to work from home involves an accommodation through the provision of assistive devices. While hybrid work arrangements have not been explicitly recognised as a form of reasonable accommodation by the Court to date, such measures can nevertheless amount to accommodation. Case law from some Member States confirms that allowing an employee to work from home is a form of reasonable accommodation (Waddington and Broderick 2024, pp. 75–76), while Blanck, writing in the US context, has identified ‘telework or remote work’ as forms of accommodation (Blanck 2020, p. 205).

The duty to provide an accommodation to an individual with a disability is not absolute and can be removed when providing the accommodation would result in a disproportionate burden for the employer. Recital 21 of the Directive refers to some factors that should be taken into account to determine whether a measure amounts to a disproportionate burden. These are ‘the financial and other costs entailed, the scale and financial resources of the organisation or undertaking, and the possibility of obtaining public funding or any other assistance’. Broderick and Ferri have argued that ‘the provision of reasonable accommodation is often low cost or cost-free’ (Broderick and Ferri 2019, p. 230; Blanck 2020, p. 506 argues similarly). However, the majority decision by the CRPD Committee in Jungelin v. Sweden has recognised that the financial cost of a requested accommodation can be relevant for determining whether a duty bearer must implement the accommodation or, in the alternative, is exempt from this requirement on the grounds that this would amount to a disproportionate burden (Ferri 2018, p. 44). It is also worth noting that costs may not only be financial in nature and that any costs should be ‘mitigated by compensations or gains to the accommodating party, which could include incentives, exemptions, and state immunities, or even gains from marketing social responsibility’ (de Campos Velho Martel 2011, p. 104).

In the case of a worker with a disability who requests to be allowed to work on a hybrid basis as a form of accommodation, an individualised analysis, taking account of the resources and situation of the employer, the availability of other resources to cover the cost of the relevant equipment, and any other relevant factors, would be needed to determine whether this would result in a disproportionate burden. In many cases, the financial costs of this accommodation could be expected to be limited, although some costs may accrue where the worker needs (expensive) specialised equipment to work remotely. These costs might be covered (partially) by public subsidies or, depending on the financial resources of the employer, not be sufficient to amount to a ‘disproportionate burden’ for that employer, although it is possible that such a burden may result in exceptional situations.

The CRPD prohibits disability discrimination, including a denial of reasonable accommodation. Article 27 addresses various employment-related rights and provides that the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others ‘includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive, and accessible to persons with disabilities’. States Parties are obliged to ensure that ‘reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities in the workplace’ (Article 27(1)(i)), and General comment No. 8 on the right of persons with disabilities to work and employment, adopted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2022), recognises that enabling a person to work from home is a form of reasonable accommodation (para. 19).

Both the EU and all its Member States are parties to the CRPD, and the Employment Equality Directive is an important instrument for ensuring compliance with the employment-related obligations under the Convention. The CJEU has also repeatedly stated that the Employment Equality Directive ‘must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with that convention’ (see, for example, Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge, para. 32)). However, neither the Employment Equality Directive nor the CRPD establish a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for a reason unrelated to disability. There is no such duty, for example, in the fields of age (Broderick and Watson 2020, p. 13; Sargeant 2008) or gender. This is potentially significant as older workers, workers with caring responsibilities, and pregnant workers could benefit from the opportunity to engage in hybrid working in certain circumstances. However, the protection from indirect discrimination could nevertheless potentially be of relevance here (Waddington 2011, p. 197).5

Having established that hybrid working and additional individualised arrangements for staff with disabilities who are working in a hybrid fashion can be forms of reasonable accommodation, the next section of the paper considers the implications of hybrid working for persons with disabilities.

4. Hybrid Working and Persons with Disabilities

There is ample evidence that hybrid working, as well as the more far-reaching measure of fully remote working (meaning that no time is spent on-site at the employer’s workplace), can benefit some persons with disabilities (Bosua and Gloet 2021). Hybrid and remote working allows workers flexibility, giving them more autonomy and control over when6 and how they work, as well as more control over the working environment. In the case of workers with disabilities, this form of working enables them to take (frequent) breaks and rest as required and to create a work environment that meets their needs. This can be particularly important in the case of fluctuating conditions, such as conditions resulting in varying degrees of pain and fatigue,7 and for workers who require a quiet or low-sensory working environment, such as some individuals who are neurodiverse. Workers can also have more privacy managing health conditions, such as when taking medicine, changing a colostomy bag, or when making or having medical appointments over the phone or remotely, and remain close to essential medical equipment. They may also have better access to toilet facilities when working remotely, which can be important for people with some conditions. More generally, workers can schedule their work around non-work demands when working flexibly (Hoque and Bacon 2022, p. 34) and do not have to explain their absences or behaviour to colleagues (Mačikene 2023, p. 13).

A further health benefit for workers with disabilities who work from home can result from the removal of the need to commute to and from the on-site workplace. These journeys can potentially be exhausting and challenging, particularly when they involve the use of inaccessible transport (Hoque and Bacon 2022, p. 34) or lengthy travel time. Working from home can also enable individuals to avoid inaccessible workplaces ‘that lack sufficient access, and/or do not meet their comfort/posture, noise, privacy and lighting needs’ or suitable assistive technology and ‘avoid environmental barriers in the workplace regarding job roles that offer limited control over the pace of work, how the work is undertaken, and start and finish times’ (Hoque and Bacon 2022, p. 34). However, it has also been argued that working from home should be a choice for persons with disabilities ‘and not presented as the only available option because of poor infrastructure support (e.g., deficient public transportation, inaccessible buildings)’ (McNaughton et al. 2014, p. 124).

The greater anonymity working from home involves can also result in benefits. It can reduce the impact of negative stereotypes, particularly for individuals with visible or obvious impairments or for individuals who need to take regular short breaks (Hoque and Bacon 2022, p. 35), as well as disability-related bias and discrimination (Linden and Milchus 2014, p. 474). It can also reduce the stigma associated with using assistive devices, as it is easier to keep the use of such devices hidden (Hoque and Bacon 2022, p. 35).

Other benefits associated with hybrid and remote working can include increased productivity, with 85% of workers with a disability in two large-scale studies stating that they felt more productive when working from home (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2022, p. 12), and reduced sick leave (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 11). The flexibility associated with hybrid and remote work, and the resulting health benefits, can also allow individuals to continue in employment for longer (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 11).

Large-scale research from the United Kingdom has revealed the importance of remote and hybrid working for persons with disabilities. Interim findings from a study funded by the Nuffield Foundation and carried out by Lancaster University (henceforth 2025 survey), which involved a survey of 1221 workers with a disability or long-term health condition with experience of hybrid or remote working, found that there is a high demand for these forms of work amongst workers with a disability (Florisson et al. 2025). Furthermore, 85% of survey respondents indicated that access to hybrid or remote working was essential or very important when looking for a new job, and 30% of respondents who already had hybrid working arrangements wished to increase the amount of time spent working remotely. An earlier survey (henceforth 2022 survey), which was also carried out by staff at Lancaster University and which surveyed 406 workers with a disability, found that 70% of the surveyed workers believed that their physical or mental health would suffer if their employer did not allow them to work remotely (Taylor et al. 2022, p. 13). A pre-COVID-19 survey of 3000 adults working remotely or on a hybrid basis found that 14% of the surveyed workers had a disability or chronic illness, and 83% of those workers were able to work because of remote work. The report based on that survey argued, ‘[r]emote work levels the playing field: it … creates opportunity for everyone to contribute in the workplace’ (GitLab 2020).

The 2025 survey also revealed that the benefits of remote working, in terms of the ability to manage an impairment or long-term health condition, tended to decrease as the amount of time spent working remotely decreased. 80% of respondents who worked in fully remote positions reported a positive impact on their ability to manage their health. This was also evidenced in employees who worked in a hybrid capacity, although in this case only 38% of respondents who worked remotely for less than half of their working time reported this positive impact (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 10). However, a notable minority of respondents found that working remotely had a negative impact on their health.8 12% of surveyed workers wanted to work remotely less often than they were currently doing (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 11). The 2022 study found that 65.8% of the workers surveyed wanted to work remotely for 80–100% of the time; 16% wanted to work remotely for 60% of the time; 18% wanted to work remotely for less than that; and 1.7% did not wish to work remotely at all (Taylor et al. 2022, pp. 10–11). This finding is potentially significant, as employers may have a 60:40 percent policy regarding hybrid working, meaning 60% of the working time, or 3 days on the basis of a standard full-time contract, should be spent on-site.9 This division of on-site and home working was only favoured by, at most, 18% of the respondents in the 2022 survey, with over 80% of respondents wishing to work remotely for 60% or more of the time. This may indicate a need to make adapted arrangements for some workers with disabilities regarding hybrid work, if possible.

The 2025 study also identified the following challenges associated with hybrid and remote working: possible negative impact on career progression; feelings of isolation; absence of accessible technology, which hampered participation in hybrid meetings; and difficulty retaining access to previously agreed reasonable accommodations at the workplace, for example, following the implementation of a ‘hot-desk’ system (Florisson et al. 2025, p. 11). Workers with multiple impairments were most concerned about these risks (Taylor et al. 2022, p. 6). There is also some evidence that workers with disabilities work harder and longer when working from home compared to when working on-site, ‘especially in light of potential biased views of colleagues and employers regarding their working capacities’ (Mačikene 2023, p. 17). A further challenge may relate to feeling overwhelmed by the variety of communication options and tools used when working remotely (Mačikene 2023, p. 17). Lastly, Schur et al. found that while remote work from home may improve employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, it does not address the wage gap experienced by such workers and may even exacerbate it (Schur et al. 2020, p. 532).

It is, therefore, important to recognise that hybrid working will not be suitable for all persons with disabilities; moreover, even when this form of working helps individuals with disabilities to overcome some employment-related barriers, some issues, such as the wage gap experienced by some workers with disabilities, are likely to remain unaddressed, while other issues, such as lack of social interaction, can be made worse through hybrid working. While this article focuses on the potential benefits of hybrid working for persons with disabilities and the related legal obligations and university policies, the negative dimensions to, and unsuitability of, this way of working for some employees with disabilities should not be overlooked.

Moreover, hybrid working can never be used as a tool to excuse the employer from making accommodations or improving accessibility at the on-site workplace, and employees should not be forced to work on a hybrid or remote basis because of the lack of an appropriate working environment on-site. Where hybrid working is not a mandatory requirement for all employees, it must also be a choice for workers with disabilities; and, where hybrid working is mandatory, a reasonable accommodation for some workers with disabilities might be to waive that requirement and allow an individual to work wholly on-site where this is needed for a disability-related reason.

5. Hybrid Working for Staff with Disabilities and Reasonable Accommodations

During the post-pandemic period, many employers have decided to offer their workers the possibility to carry out some of their work from home. In some sectors the pandemic has arguably ‘normalised’ hybrid working (Rauf et al. 2025, p. 46), meaning that it is not a ‘special arrangement’ confined to workers who have caring tasks or for workers with a disability who are permitted to work from home on occasions as a ‘reasonable accommodation’.10 This has undoubtedly benefitted workers who need to work from home for a disability-related reason, as it helps to remove any stigma from working in this manner, as well as frequently removing the need for such workers to request ‘special’ or ‘alternative arrangements’ (Mačikene 2023, pp. 10 and 15). It can also avoid conflict with other non-disabled staff who were previously denied permission to work from home (Holland 2021, p. 168). What may have been a reasonable accommodation tailored to meet the needs of a particular individual with a disability before the pandemic may now just be a normal working arrangement available to all workers in sofar as their work can be carried out off-site. Florisson et al. argue in this respect:

the huge rise of homeworking over the past five years has meant that for many people who are disabled or have long-term health conditions, … workplace flexibility, which they may have previously sought and been denied or stigmatised for, has now been introduced across whole organisations, providing new opportunities for disabled people to access and sustain healthier work lives.

(Florisson et al. 2025, p. 5)

Nevertheless, the expansion and acceptability of hybrid working arrangements has not completely removed the need for specialised arrangements for all workers with disabilities. This can be the case for a number of reasons. Employers may well limit the amount of time an employee can spend working from home, and this can cause problems for workers with disabilities who need to work from home for longer. Employers may also only provide workers with certain ‘standard’ office furniture and equipment for a ‘home office’, and this may not meet the needs of workers with certain impairments. Individuals who combine work with ongoing medical treatment or rehabilitation, which could require spending periods of time away from their home, could also need individualised arrangements to enable them to combine treatment and work. On the other hand, some workers, including some persons who are neurodiverse, may find working from home or hybrid working arrangements to be too unstructured and require the possibility to carry out all their work on-site or need more structured and detailed hybrid working agreements so that they have clarity as to when they are expected to be in the office and when they are permitted to work from home and the kind of work they are expected to do at the two locations.

From a legal perspective, a distinction should, therefore, continue to be made between requests to work on a hybrid basis based on an employer’s standard hybrid working policy, including such requests made by staff with disabilities, and requests made to work in this way as a form of reasonable accommodation. A request would only be considered as a request for a reasonable accommodation if the employer was aware that this was being made for a disability-related reason, meaning that hybrid or remote work would allow the worker to overcome barriers they faced as a result of an impairment.

Employers that offer limited possibilities to work on a hybrid basis are, therefore, required to assess such requests that are made for a disability-related reason in a different way from the requests of other staff and may be obliged to allow workers with disabilities to work on a hybrid basis while choosing to simultaneously deny or limit this possibility for other staff. Moreover, employers who allow many of their staff to work on a hybrid basis may need to make accommodations to enable their staff with disabilities to also take up this possibility. Indeed, as a result of the ‘normalisation’ of hybrid working in some sectors, including higher education, the focus has arguably moved from allowing staff with disabilities to work from home for some of their working hours as a form of reasonable accommodation to considering how and whether the ‘standard’ hybrid working arrangements can be adapted, through a reasonable accommodation measure, to meet the particular needs of these workers.

Accommodations to enable hybrid working could relate to providing accessible office furniture or ICT equipment, including software, at the remote workplace. Other accommodations could involve the provision of additional digital support to set up the remote office or adopting specific etiquette for online and hybrid meetings, such as ensuring that live captions are generated during online meetings or taking short breaks at regular intervals during such meetings. A 2014 study, based on 373 responses to a survey of workers with a disability in the US, found that the most common additional accommodations received by persons who carried out telework as a form of accommodation11 were flexible work schedules, customised workstations, and use of alternative computer input devices (Linden and Milchus 2014, p. 481).

Nevertheless, in spite of a strong reasonable accommodation/adjustment duty being in place in Great Britain under the Equalities Act 2010, the 2022 British study referred to above revealed that 19.1% of workers who had requested additional support or reasonable accommodations when working from home had had their request refused, with no alternative arrangements being put in place (Taylor et al. 2022, p. 15). An earlier British study by the trade union UNISON found that a failure to provide reasonable accommodations for staff with disabilities working from home, such as providing access to adaptable keyboards and speech-to-text software, led to reduced productivity (UNISON 2020). The 2022 study also found that, while 89% of respondents reported having the specialist equipment or software they needed in order to work at their remote workplace, many of the 20 workers with a disability who were interviewed as part of the research reported that they had to purchase the equipment themselves (Taylor et al. 2022, p. 5).

Hybrid work practices may also result in the need for reasonable accommodations in the employee’s on-site workplace. Following the introduction of hybrid working, on-site workplaces may move to ‘hot desking’, whereby staff potentially work at a different desk every time they are on-site. However, a staff member with a disability might require a designated workplace when in the office, for example, because their workplace contains adapted furniture or ICT devices, or because they require a familiar, quiet, or low-sensory workplace. An accommodation in such a situation would be to assign them a designated workplace when on-site.

This reveals the importance of complying with the duty to provide reasonable accommodations for workers who engage in hybrid working, including ensuring that appropriate office and ICT equipment and software are provided in the remote workplace as well as on-site. However, since working from home can render a worker less visible within their organisation and to the employer, there may be a greater chance that workers with disabilities working from home have their particular needs or difficulties overlooked, including the need for accommodations within their remote workplace. This may be a particular risk for individuals with invisible impairments (Holland 2021, p. 168). On the other hand, hybrid working is likely to involve the worker having two workplaces, one at home and one on-site, and while some ‘accommodations’, such as assistive technology software on a laptop, could be moved between the workplaces, not all equipment could be. This would result in a ‘double burden’ for employers, who might justify the refusal to provide the same accommodation at two different locations on the grounds that it would amount to a disproportionate burden (Mačikene 2023, p. 18).

Lastly, ensuring that staff with disabilities who engage in remote or hybrid work are not disadvantaged, for example, in career development and access to training, and are provided with the appropriate reasonable accommodations in their remote office may require appropriate training and awareness raising among line managers, as well as an appropriate policy and system for funding remote workplaces that recognises the needs of workers with a disability. In this respect, Mačikene has referred to ‘the importance of cultural change within workplaces, as well as guidance, support, and training for line managers in ensuring hybrid work can be an enabler, rather than a barrier, for disabled people in the workplace’ (Mačikene 2023, p. 11). While this is not a reasonable accommodation as such, since it does not concern an individual worker with a disability, it can be an additional element linked to an effective approach to hybrid working for staff with disabilities.

The next section of the paper considers how the hybrid working policies of the universities included in this research address the situation of workers with disabilities.

6. Staff with Disabilities in Higher Education and Hybrid Working: A Case Study

Hybrid working is more common amongst persons in higher occupational groups with higher levels of education (Mačikene 2023, p. 11). The education sector offers a lot of potential for allowing staff to work from home (Schur et al. 2020, p. 533), and higher education and science are areas where hybrid working is relatively common (Mačikene 2023, p. 13). Staff working in higher education, whether in an academic or administrative capacity, are, therefore, more likely than individuals working in a range of other fields or industries to have the possibility to work on a hybrid basis. This is reflected in the fact that all seven universities included in this study have written policies on hybrid working, all of which have been adopted or revised relatively recently, and many of these are fairly elaborate (for example, Trier, Maastricht, Trinity and UCL). The three Norwegian universities have the least elaborated policies. In some cases, the policies are primarily directed at administrative or support staff (Bergen, Trier12 and Trinity), with the understanding that academic staff at the relevant institutions can work from home without making such official arrangements. However, in other cases (Maastricht, Oslo and UCL), the policy covers all staff, irrespective of the nature of their function. All policies state that the main or general rule is that work should be carried out on-site and that hybrid working is not a right. The policies stress that for hybrid working to be permitted, the nature of the work must allow for its performance off-site. They refer to the value of working on-site for some of the working time, as well as the value of the flexibility remote work offers, and note that this is appreciated by some employees. They also generally indicate that the interests of the university, including the faculty, unit, and team where the employee works, have priority over the interest of the employee who wishes to engage in hybrid work. The policies also usually state that employees are not obliged to work on a hybrid basis and that working only on-site remains possible. Many policies explicitly acknowledge that different ways of working will suit different staff. Maastricht University’s home page on hybrid working, for example, states, ‘we embrace diversity in our working methods and understand that a one-size-fits-all approach no longer fits modern times’.

There are a lot of similarities regarding the formal procedure to be followed across the seven universities: staff must make an application to work on a hybrid basis to their line manager and must also carry out a health and safety check confirming that their remote workplace meets the relevant legal standards. The application must contain information about the time that the employee will work from home. Even when staff have a hybrid working arrangement, the policies allow the manager to require an employee to be present at the workplace on a specific day for a work-related reason. Employees need to confirm that they have the appropriate equipment, such as a suitable desk, chair, monitor, keyboard and mouse. In some cases, the employer covers the cost of such equipment (Maastricht) or provides the relevant equipment once an application is approved. In such cases, the standard procurement rules of the institution apply, and only a limited range of equipment can be purchased in principle. The employer generally provides a laptop, which can be moved between the remote and on-site workplace. Policies usually indicate factors managers should consider when deciding on whether to grant a request. A refusal to grant a request must usually be motivated in writing, and some kind of appeal procedure is provided for.

Several policies specify that staff who work remotely may no longer have a fixed workplace on-site and may need to share a workstation with others/hot desk (Maastricht, Trier and Trinity).

The policies at Maastricht and Trier Universities and UCL all refer explicitly to employees with disabilities. The policy of Trier University, which is contained in an agreement concluded with the Staff Council, has as one of its explicit aims improving conditions for individuals with disabilities. More broadly, the Hybrid Working Guidance for all UCL staff states that hybrid working will, where possible, ‘support general EDI [Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) objectives by meeting the needs of certain groups such as … those with certain protected characteristics such as disabled colleagues’ (Article 4). The policies of all three universities include a number of provisions to facilitate hybrid working by employees with disabilities in their policies, and all explicitly recognise that additional support, or non-standard arrangements, may be needed to enable employees with disabilities to benefit from hybrid working.

The policies on hybrid work of the three Norwegian universities do not make any mention of employees with a disability. Email correspondence with relevant staff at these universities indicates that an agreement on hybrid work could nevertheless be made with an employee with a disability where this is needed for a disability-related reason, but there is no policy on this. It also does not seem that any of the Norwegian universities have an explicit policy on reasonable accommodation for staff with disabilities.13 Such a policy could help employees with disabilities and managers to be aware of this possibility and could provide a framework for reaching agreement on this form of reasonable accommodation. The policy of Trinity College Dublin also does not refer explicitly to employees with disabilities. However, this university had a detailed Code of Practice covering the employment of people with disabilities, which was adopted some years prior to the policy on ‘blended working’ and which covers reasonable accommodation. Nevertheless, hybrid or blended working is not mentioned as a form of accommodation in that document.

The following sections consider how a number of issues addressed in the various university policies are of particular relevance to employees with disabilities.

6.1. Health and Safety Checks and Equipment for the Remote Work Station

Staff are required to confirm that their remote workstation meets health and safety standards, and university policies generally refer to standards set in specific health and safety legislation in that respect. Staff with disabilities might require certain specific or accessible furniture, aids, or appliances in order to work in a safe or effective manner, and most policies do not refer to this possibility explicitly. However, this is recognised in Maastricht University’s regulation on Hybrid Working, which provides that ‘[i]f the employee needs adapted facilities for health reasons, different arrangements must be made to facilitate these. These recommendations are made exclusively at the recommendation of the prevention officer14 and, if necessary, the company doctor15.’ (Article 11(4)). This is also stated in the Health and Safety Checklist provided by the university to staff, which provides, ‘if you need aids in connection with a disability or chronic condition, please discuss this with your manager’, and is addressed in the Guidelines on Hybrid Working for Employees as well. No further guidance is provided to managers on how to deal with such a request in the documents on hybrid working. However, this university has recently adopted a Policy for Working with Disabilities, which explicitly addresses the provision of reasonable accommodation, and that should now frame how such requests are addressed.

The Guidelines for home offices of OsloMet specify that providing the equipment for a remote (home) office cannot result in ‘a disproportionate cost’ for the employer. It states, ‘[i]f a home office would require highly specialised or expensive equipment, this is a factor that argues against home office being agreed upon’ (3.5). This provision was not included with staff with disabilities in mind,16 although it is possible that it could justify a refusal to provide specialised equipment for an employee with a disability where the cost of that equipment amounts to a ‘disproportionate burden’.

The policy of Trier University specifies that employees are not entitled to receive equipment from the university to set up their remote office, but they can use university hardware when working remotely, and, if their organisational unit has sufficient budget, equipment can be purchased from this. Otherwise, employees can purchase equipment themselves (Mobile Work Agreement § 4(1)(c)). This could act as a barrier to remote working for employees with disabilities who require (specialised) equipment in order to work remotely. Adapted and accessible equipment, such as an office chair designed for a specific individual, can be very expensive, and where the costs are not covered by the employer or another body, such as the health insurer or social insurance fund, such equipment can be unaffordable for an individual, thereby preventing them from setting up a suitable remote workplace and being unable to work on a hybrid basis. In such a situation, the employer may argue that it is sufficient to fund one such workstation on-site, and there is no legal duty to provide a second accessible workstation, as this would amount to a ‘disproportionate burden’.

The UCL guidance notes that employees must provide a suitable workstation that meets health and safety standards at their own expense but also indicates that employees with disabilities can be supported by being provided with special equipment as a form of reasonable adjustment when working remotely. The document Guidance for Remote Working states that staff with a disability or long-term condition who require specialist equipment to work from home as a reasonable adjustment will be supported on a case-by-case basis (Article 5).

6.2. Arrangements Regarding Which Days to Work from Home and the Amount of Time Spent Working from Home

Some universities require staff to indicate which days they plan to work from home, while others simply require that staff indicate the percentage of working time they will spend working from home, with precise arrangements regarding the days to be worked from home to be agreed upon with the manager.

In Maastricht, ‘the basic principle’ is that staff spend 60% of their working hours on-site and 40% at home. However, the Guidelines on Hybrid Working for Managers indicate that different arrangements can be made at the request of the employee or on the initiative of the manager and that the division of time ‘depends not only on the roles and duties performed by an employee but also on their personal circumstances and preferences’.

The policies at Bergen and UCL also indicate that the standard amount of time working off-site should usually not exceed 40%.

According to § 1 of the Mobile Work Agreement of Trier University, the maximum amount of time staff can work remotely is 50% of their working hours. However, the agreement also states that, in exceptional circumstances, deviations from the scope of the mobile work may be made for employees who are severely disabled or have an equivalent status upon application to the human resources department.17 In practice, this means that it is possible for such employees to spend less than 50% of their working hours on-site.

Trinity College Dublin’s policy does not indicate the minimum number of days employees should be on-site, but information on an FAQ page of this university notes that best practice suggests that there should be some time spent on-site on a regular basis.

In terms of the days when staff work on-site and from home, the Guidelines on Hybrid Working for Managers at Maastricht University indicate that the number of days employees work from home and on-site can fluctuate and that the formal agreement made with the employee simply indicates a weekly average. The Guidelines state, ‘[t]he exact number of days [the employee] works from home in any given week is less important than the weekly average over time’, and recommend calculating this weekly average over the course of six or twelve months. The Guidelines on Hybrid Working for Managers explicitly address the situation of staff with a disability in this context. They specify, ‘people with a disability or chronic condition may have a greater need for structure or, alternatively, flexibility. We recommend that you pursue an open dialogue about this and ensure that you are well-informed of these employees’ needs and how you can support them to function optimally’. The Guidelines then go on to give two examples to explain how arrangements can be made with staff with disabilities regarding when they will be on-site:

An employee with a physical or psychological condition that causes pain or fatigue may be unable to say in advance on which days they will work from home and which days at the office, as this depends on their physical and mental condition. Similarly, they may not be able to commit to being in the office for a set number of days per week, even if this number is agreed upon.

Occasionally an employee may need additional time at home; for example, after carrying out work duties they find particular taxing. We recommend making arrangements about how to deal with these situations. This ensures clarity for all parties and gives the employee peace of mind: the knowledge they will receive the necessary breathing room on completion of the task and make it easier to deal with.

The Guidelines for Home Office from OsloMet University specify ‘[t]o the extent possible, there will be predictability regarding which days of the week the employee will work from home’. The Guidelines do not refer to which factors can legitimately remove this need for ‘predictability’, and, as mentioned above, staff with disabilities are not mentioned explicitly in the Guidelines.

At Trier University and Trinity College Dublin, employees must indicate which days of the week they will work remotely when completing their application, and this must be agreed upon with the manager.

At UCL, the Hybrid Working Guidance advise managers to take into account the ‘personal circumstances of staff who are adversely impacted by frequent changes to their work pattern and regular varying campus days’ (Article 22). Persons with disabilities are not mentioned in this context, but employees who could benefit from a regular and predictable work pattern include some individuals who are neurodiverse,18 as well as individuals who need to reserve time for ‘low intensity’ remote workdays after an intensive period of work or other activity. The Hybrid Working Guidance provided by UCL acknowledges that ‘individual circumstances may also affect working patterns or level of attendance on campus, for example, a reasonable adjustment’ (Article 19). The policy, therefore, explicitly recognises that a hybrid working arrangement can be a form of reasonable accommodation (or adjustment) and that this can result in a deviation from the standard arrangements made in the context of hybrid work. While the general policy is for staff to spend a significant amount of time on campus, UCL’s Hybrid Working Guidance recognises that a small group of workers can be ‘remote first’, meaning that they spend less than 20% of their working time on campus. One reason for allowing individuals to work ‘remote first’ is where this is needed as a form of reasonable accommodation (Articles 35 and 37).

UCL’s Hybrid Working Guidance also contains a set of articles specifically on ‘disabled colleagues’. The Guidance recognises both that remote working in itself can be a ‘reasonable adjustment’ and that additional adjustments or accommodations may be needed to enable an employee with a disability to work remotely (Article 45). It specifies that ‘[i]f a colleague needs additional remote working support because of their disability, this should be considered and supported if appropriate’ (Article 46). It goes further than other policies considered in this paper by requiring that consideration be given ‘to how space, including meeting rooms and desk space allocation, is organised on-site and the potential impact on disabled colleagues’ (Article 47), and notes that when arranging hybrid meetings, the chair of the meeting is responsible for ensuring that all accessibility needs are met (Article 48).

6.3. Termination or Suspension of a Hybrid Working Arrangement

The manager can decide to terminate or suspend the hybrid working arrangement in certain situations. In Maastricht, the University Regulations on Hybrid Working indicate that one reason for a temporary suspension is to require the employee to attend reintegration activities at the university related to incapacity for work (Article 21(4)(a)).

In Germany, all employers with five or more severely disabled employees are obliged to appoint a representative body to help protect the interests of staff who are severely disabled (§ 177 SGB IX n.d.), and such a body exists at Trier University. The University allows for the termination of an agreement to work remotely where the conditions for remote work are no longer met or in justified special cases. In that case, there is an obligation to inform the Staff Council, the Equal Opportunities Officer, and, presumably in the case of an employee who is recognised as being severely disabled or having equivalent status, the Representative of Severely Disabled Persons (Mobile Work Agreement § 6(2)). Similarly, if a request for mobile working is rejected, an employee may request a review of the decision by an arbitration board. The board can consult the Representative for Severely Disabled Persons and/or the Equal Opportunities Officer when making a decision (§5(5)). The involvement of the Representative helps to protect the interest of the employee who is severely disabled in having or maintaining a remote working arrangement.

6.4. New Employees and Hybrid Working

Some policies address the situation of new employees. At Maastricht, the Guidelines on Hybrid Working for Managers indicate that it may be in the interest of new employees and the university to ensure that they are ‘well trained before they begin working from home’ and that a manager can reject a request for hybrid work from a new employee on this basis.

The policy at Trier University indicates that, as a rule, only staff who have worked for the university for at least six months can apply to work on a hybrid basis (Mobile Work Agreement §1 and §4(1)(a)).19 However, in exceptional circumstances, this can be deviated from for employees who are severely disabled or have equivalent status (Mobile Work Agreement §1).

The other policies do not address the situation of new employees.

6.5. Brief Reflections

This section has revealed diverse approaches to how university policies address the situation of employees with a disability in their hybrid working policies. In several policies, including those from the three Norwegian universities, employees with disabilities are ‘invisible’ in the relevant policies. In contrast, the policy of Trier University explicitly addresses the situation of staff who are ‘severely disabled’ or have equivalent status, while the policies at Maastricht and, in particular, UCL recognise that staff with disabilities may have particular needs with regard to hybrid working and foresee that these will be addressed to the extent possible.

7. Conclusions

This paper has revealed how both the CRPD and the EU Employment Equality Directive require employers to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, including facilitating hybrid work. This form of work can help some staff with disabilities to overcome employment-related barriers and succeed in the workplace. It offers staff increased flexibility and autonomy, reduces the need for tiring and time-consuming commutes to work, allows staff to arrange their work around the health-related limitations that they may experience, and offers other benefits, such as the possibility to take short rests during the working day, as well as potentially reducing discriminatory or biased assumptions or actions directed at staff with disabilities. However, hybrid working is not suitable for all persons with disabilities, as it may not offer the structure that some staff require and may result in feelings of social isolation and reduced well-being.

This paper has also revealed how workers with disabilities can sometimes have particular and non-standard needs when it comes to hybrid working arrangements. These can relate to, for example, the need for flexibility regarding the days that will be worked at home and on-site, allowing staff to work from home for a greater amount of time than is usual, and providing staff with adapted and accessible equipment in their remote office. Given that employers, including universities, frequently now have policies on hybrid working, it is appropriate that those policies specifically address the situation of this group of workers and make explicit links with the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for workers with a disability in this context. This is the case even when the employer has a separate policy on reasonable accommodation. In the absence of such explicit recognition, managers may be reluctant to make ‘non-standard’ hybrid working arrangements with this group of workers, and workers may not request or even consider requesting such arrangements. It is important to bolster such policies with awareness raising and training for managers so that they are understand the importance of hybrid working for staff with disabilities, as well as the duty and possibilities to make reasonable accommodations.

Hybrid working policies of universities have the potential to address different dimensions of hybrid working for staff with disabilities. However, in some cases university hybrid working policies completely fail to refer to staff with disabilities or recognise the legal duty to provide reasonable accommodation. This arguably increases the risk that the power of hybrid working arrangements will not be utilised to the fullest extent possible to benefit staff with disabilities, especially when an institution also does not have an explicit policy on reasonable accommodation. In contrast, those policies that recognise the importance of reasonably accommodating staff with disabilities when making hybrid working arrangements help to create awareness of the importance of accommodations in this area, as well as creating a framework within which managers and employees can discuss such arrangements.