With more companies requiring remote employees to return to work at their physical office locations, the status of remote work is evolving, with more and more employers facing challenges to their decisions regarding their remote workforces. Two recent court decisions are examples of how remote workers’ claims are being handled.
Where does a remote worker sue their employer?
For the first six years of her employment with The American Oncologic Hospital, Inna Khartchenko worked on site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 2013, she began working a hybrid remote schedule where she worked some days from her home in New Jersey. Once the COVID-19 pandemic took off, her entire department began working a fully remote work schedule. Later, Khartchenko received approval to work remotely through June 2023, an arrangement that not only allowed her to spend more time at home with her ailing husband, but also facilitated her own recovery after undergoing major surgery in January 2023.
Before Khartchenko’s pre-approved remote work arrangement was set to expire in June 2023, a new supervisor began taking steps to end her work-at-home status, requiring that she return to the office three days a week. According to Khartchenko, the new supervisor’s actions were discriminatory, retaliatory, and in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Khartchenko sued her employer in New Jersey, where she worked and lived. The hospital objected and argued her claims should be filed and decided in Pennsylvania, where it was located.
ADA discrimination and retaliation claims can be brought where the alleged discriminatory actions took place, where relevant employment records are maintained, or where a plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged discriminatory actions. In this case:
- Khartchenko was hired to work in Pennsylvania;
- She frequently communicated with supervisors and Human Resources in Pennsylvania;
- The relevant employment records were located in Pennsylvania; and
- The contested employment decisions were made in Pennsylvania.
Under these circumstances, a New Jersey federal court decided that Khartchenko’s lawsuit against the hospital should be transferred to a Pennsylvania federal court.
Do I get paid as soon as I log in to my remote computer?
LYP Contact Center provided call center services for healthcare providers. Patient care associates (PCAs) answered inbound calls from patients of LYP’s clients and covered such things as appointment scheduling, test results, medication refills, and after-hour emergencies. PCAs were non-exempt employees who were scheduled to work 40 hours per week and could only work overtime if authorized in advance by their managers. The employer required PCAs to be at a “call-ready” state at the beginning of their shift, which meant the associates were able to receive and respond to patient calls.
In addition to the telephone system, PCAs used laptop computers, docking stations, and multiple software applications to handle incoming patient calls. According to the plaintiff PCAs, it took approximately five to 10 minutes to log in to their computers and open the necessary software applications. For pay purposes, these associates “clocked in” through a web-based timekeeping system. Frequently, the timekeeping website would not be accessed and the PCA would not be “clocked in” until after the employee had opened the software applications. At the end of a workday, PCAs “clocked out,” then proceeded to close out software applications and shut down the computer. PCAs estimated this process also took five to 10 minutes.
With this timekeeping practice, there could be uncompensated time at the beginning of a workday – namely, the time between when PCAs logged in on their computer and when they were clocked in and were “call-ready” – and, likewise, at the end of the workday – the time between when they clocked out and when they closed out applications and shut down their computers. An Ohio federal court was asked the question: When did the workday begin and end under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for these PCAs?
The question had been previously addressed by two other federal courts involving employees working in physical call centers. One of those cases was decided by the Tenth Circuit of Appeals, which covers Oklahoma. In those cases, the courts found that employees who worked on site at the call centers should be paid for the time they spent “waking up the computer, entering credentials, and opening various applications” before performing their daily duties. Because the PCAs in the LYP case worked remotely, the Ohio court came to a different conclusion.
According to the Ohio court, when remote employees turn on their computers at home, a wide range of potential activities are available to them that may not be job-related. “[A]fter a remote employee starts his or her computer, the activities that he or she undertakes are not automatically rendered a principal activity merely because the work computer is functioning.” Cited examples included playing Sudoku online, perusing Reddit, or reading an article on CNN.com. For remote employees, the Ohio court went a different direction from the two cases involving in-office employees. For the LYP remote employees, the Ohio court found their workdays did not begin and end based upon when they logged in and logged out of their computers. Instead, paid time would not begin until after they began using job-related software applications, and it ended when they ceased using those applications.
Are these decisions binding, and what’s next?
Other courts are not obligated to follow these two decisions, but they do illustrate how some courts are addressing remote work disputes. Remote work and how laws apply to a remote work arrangement are evolving. Like most employment issues, the outcomes of remote work questions are fact-specific and can vary depending on the situation. We’re tracking how courts and governmental agencies address remote work and will continue to advise employers about new developments like these recent cases.
.
Khartchenko v. The American Oncologic Hospital, Inc., 23-CV-23043 (Dist. Ct. N. J. 11/10/25)
Lott v. Recker Consulting, LLC, 1:23-CV-489 (Dist. Ct. S.D. Ohio 9/4/25)
Image source: Getty Images
