It's Mark, and welcome back. Today we're talking about five years after COVID. Workers are not asking for flexibility, they are fighting for their jobs. COVID pushed the world into the largest workplace experiment in modern history. Now many employers are acting as though the results never happened. When the pandemic arrived, remote work was not a perk. It was a lifeline. It kept people working, it kept businesses solvent. It protected families whose health, pregnancy, disability, age, or caregiving responsibilities made daily commuting impossible. Employers relied on it. Clients and customers depended on it. No one suggested remote work was unprofessional when it saved companies from collapse. Now, some of those same employers are imposing rigid return to office policies as if the workers who sustained them during the crisis suddenly became unreliable or expendable. New rules are written with the clear intent of ignoring four years of proven performance. Workers kept businesses alive for their homes from their homes are now facing discipline, negative evaluations, and pressures to quit. The message is simple. Remote work was acceptable when it protected companies, but does not matter when it protects employees. This is not about office culture, it's about power. During the pandemic, millions of employees with chronic medical conditions, disabilities, pregnancy related complications, postpartum recovery needs, mobility limitations, or caregiving duties were able to remain in their jobs because they work remotely. They did not survive the crisis of convenience. They did so through necessity and through accommodation. Today, those same workers are being told that the exact same work they performed with success is now, quote unquote, not feasible to perform from home. The job didn't change, only the employer's priority changed. For disabled workers, the reversal is especially damaging. Many fought to stay employed through treatment, pain, flare-ups, and they succeeded. They have the proof that the job can be performed remotely because they did it. Now they are being pushed into resignations that are framed as personal choice, even though the alternative is risking their health, losing their livelihood. A resignation that results from an inflexible policy is not a voluntary career decision, it's an economic coercion. Take, for example, Falsch versus Fitch Solutions, Inc. This is a 2025 litigation we filed in federal court in Manhattan. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that her employer rescinded remote work flexibility, which she had long relied upon, changed her metrics and expectations without justification, and then used those altered standards to marginalize her until she felt she had no choice but to leave. While the case is still at the pleading stage, it signals a growing wave of claims that are the remote work experiment has become evidence of how work can be done, and employers that ignore it may face discrimination and constructive discharge exposures. Parents and caregivers are also feeling the impact. The pandemic forced families to reorganize their entire lives. It made parents into full-time caregivers for newborns without child care, advocates for disabled children without school support, and the primary support for especially aging or sick relatives. Remote work allowed these employees to stay employed without sacrificing the most vulnerable people in their households. Today, many are being punished for that same commitment. They are labeled as less dedicated, even when they consistently performed under pressure. When they struggled, employers used policy to blame them as though parenthood, caregiving, disability, and aging were signs of weakness instead of normal human life. We are also seeing litigation confirm that workers know remote work can be more than a convenience. It can be a legal entitlement. Take for example, Russo versus National Grid. An Eastern District of New York federal court case from 2023, two longtime dispatchers who had successfully worked remotely during COVID challenged their employers under the Americans Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Act, and most importantly, the kicker, the New York City Human Rights Law, after being denied continued remote work, despite proven performance and health risks tied to in-person presence. The federal court denied summary judgment appropriately and let the case proceed to a jury. And in October 2025, a Brooklyn federal jury awarded approximately$3.1 million in damages, finding that National Grid violated disability and human rights law. The outcome is a wake-up call. Employers that treat remote work as purely discretionary may face full-blown liability when the evidence shows that it was feasible and effective. I like that case. Tech-driven monitoring adds another pressure point. As remote workers are pulled back into the offices, companies are still quietly using digital tracking that records keystrokes, hours, breaks, and weekend work. The surveillance captures mountains of unpaid labor. It documents exactly how much time workers spend trying to meet unrealistic expectations. Ironically, the same software designed to control employees also preserves evidence of wage violations. It proves who worked, when they worked, how much work went unpaid. Remote work did not make workers less accountable. It made employers more accountable than they expected. Remote work is not a luxury request. For many workers, it's the difference between employment and unemployment, health and illness, financial stability and collapse. It allowed people to maintain their careers whilst surviving disability, childbirth, chronic conditions, and caregiving responsibilities. Employers benefit from that reality when it served them. Now they seek to discard it for convenience and pretend that the law has nothing to do with it. But the law does speak to this moment. It protects workers from retaliatory policies, it secures rights for pregnant employees, disabled employees, caregivers, and older workers who are forced out by workplace rules that were designed to exclude them. Workers are not asking for special treatment here. They are standing on the same rights that kept them employed when the world shut down. They are asking employers to respect facts that those employers themselves created through years of documented performance. Good performance, I would have had. The lesson from this period is not complicated. Remote work was not a temporary fix. It was evidence that millions of workers remain productive, loyal, capable under the most challenging circumstances in modern employment history. The experiment is over, and the workers prove their case. What comes next is not a debate about convenience, it is a reckoning over those whose needs are allowed to matter in the American workplace. Hope you enjoyed this episode. Talk to you very soon.