20:10, 13 August 2026
The court found no grounds either for forced transfer to remote work or for recovering the claimed amount from the employer.
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks
The Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact of having a disability does not automatically impose an obligation on the employer to implement remote work for the employee.
An employee with a third group disability worked as the head of a department at the municipal enterprise “Main Information and Computing Center.” After the start of the full-scale war, she repeatedly requested the employer to allow her to work remotely.
In June 2022, the employee effectively worked remotely. However, from August 1, the enterprise restored her work regime according to the terms of the employment contract — directly at the workplace.
The employee did not come to work and again asked to establish a remote work regime. The employer refused, citing, among other reasons, the nature of her work as a department head, the need to coordinate subordinates, interact with other departments and contractors.
After that, the employee went to court. She demanded, among other things, to recover over 1.5 million UAH in wages, compensate for moral and property damage, and recognize the employer’s actions as discriminatory.
The courts of first and appellate instances dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court agreed with their conclusions.
Why the Court Did Not Recognize the Employer’s Refusal as Discrimination
One of the key issues was whether the employee proved that she needed remote work as a form of reasonable accommodation specifically because of her disability.
The court noted that the individual rehabilitation program provided by the employee was drawn up back in 2013. It stated that she could work in her specialty with a reduced workload. At the same time, the document did not contain recommendations regarding remote or home-based work, nor the need for a specially equipped workplace.
The employee also did not provide other medical documents confirming the necessity of remote work specifically.
Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the status of a person with a disability alone is insufficient to automatically impose an obligation on the employer to establish remote work.
What the Court Understands by Reasonable Accommodation
The court referred to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, according to which reasonable accommodation involves necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments required by a particular situation so that a person with a disability can exercise their rights on an equal basis with others.
Refusal of reasonable accommodation under certain circumstances may constitute discrimination.
Ukrainian legislation also guarantees equality for persons with disabilities in the field of labor. In particular, Article 2-1 of the Labor Code of Ukraine provides for equality of labor rights of citizens.
Article 172 of the Labor Code of Ukraine establishes the employer’s obligations regarding the employment of persons with disabilities according to medical recommendations, as well as the possibility of establishing a part-time workday or week at their request and creating preferential working conditions.
At the same time, these norms do not mean that any demand of an employee with a disability for remote work must be unconditionally satisfied.
What the Supreme Court Said About Remote Work
The Supreme Court separately analyzed the provisions of Article 60-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
As a general rule, remote work is not an unconditional right of the employee that the employer must establish at the first request.
When deciding such a matter, the specific working conditions, the employee’s labor function, the organization of the enterprise’s activities, and the grounds provided by law for establishing a remote work regime are important.
In this case, the employer cited reasons why the department head’s presence at the workplace was necessary. These included:
- coordination of subordinates’ work;
- direct interaction with other structural units;
- work with accounting and IT departments;
- interaction with contractors;
- processing financial documentation;
- participation in the preparation of analytical materials;
- fulfillment of tasks within the “Electronic Capital” program.
Moreover, from September 1, 2022, other employees of the respective department also did not work remotely.
Under these circumstances, the court did not find that the employee was placed in a worse position specifically because of her disability.
Why the Court Did Not Recover Over 1.5 Million UAH
The Supreme Court also agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts about the absence of grounds for recovering the claimed debt.
During the downtime period, she was paid the legally prescribed compensation — not less than two-thirds of the salary.
After the downtime ended, the employee effectively did not return to work, although the employer informed her of the need to work in the usual mode.
Therefore, the court did not recognize this period as one for which the employer must pay the average wage claimed by the employee.
The court also found no grounds for compensation for moral and property damage.
As noted by the Labor and Employment Inspection of the Dnipro City Council, the Supreme Court ruling in case No. 753/9267/25 confirmed that the presence of a disability in an employee alone does not automatically mean the right to remote work.
When deciding on adapting working conditions, the specific needs of the employee, medical recommendations, the nature of their job duties, the enterprise’s capabilities, and objective reasons for the employer’s decision must be taken into account.
At the same time, the employer must consider the individual needs of the employee and possible ways to adapt working conditions, and refusal of remote work must have an objective and lawful justification.
Popular news
A man was stopped on the street and mobilized, although he was removed from the register back in 1993: what the court decided
The TCC revealed the schedule of alert groups: specific hours named
<img src="https://sud.ua/uploads/news/2026/08/13/chy-mozhna-spaliuvaty-hilky-ta-smittia-na-vlasnomu-podviri-shcho-dozvoleno-i-za-shcho-oshtrafuiut-4.webp" alt="Is it allowed to burn branches and trash in your own yard: what is permitted and what can lead to a fine” loading=”lazy”>
Is it allowed to burn branches and trash in your own yard: what is permitted and what can lead to a fine
‘We went in the wrong direction on mobilization’ – Lubinets stated that complaints about the Territorial Recruitment Centers have increased dozens of times
The Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support fined a man living in Germany 17 thousand hryvnias: he found out about it after the seizure of funds
