Return to Office Mandate: Can a Firm Make Exceptions for Selected Employees?

27.04.2026

Matylda is the HR Head at a marketing agency. The agency employs several dozen people. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the firm has allowed employees to work remotely. However, there was no formal procedure. Everyone worked remotely whenever they wanted. In practice, the agency’s beautiful office in the center of Warsaw sat empty daily.

Recently, Matylda’s agency won a major tender. The firm will be serving one of the largest grocery chains. This is a significant challenge, requiring full engagement from all employees.

Matylda – in accordance with the board’s decision – announced an “all hands on board” mode and a change in remote work rules. From now on, employees are to work on-site from the office. If they wish to work remotely, they may do so for one selected day per month. Only in truly exceptional situations may the firm agree to more remote days.

Within just a few weeks of the new rules taking effect, the first requests began to appear.

First, a request was submitted by Agnieszka, who picks up her child from daycare earlier on Fridays. For this reason, she would like to work remotely one day a week. Matylda granted her consent.

Next was Zosia. Being six months pregnant, she could not imagine daily commutes to the office. She requested three days of remote work per week. Matylda granted her consent.

Then, Jacek appeared in Matylda’s office. He was recently diagnosed with ADHD. As a neuroatypical person, he concentrates better at home. He requested two days of remote work per week. And here, a problem arose.

Matylda felt she was losing control over the situation. She feared the firm would quickly return to the previous model, and she would have to explain herself to the board. She refused Jacek.

She decided that exceptions would apply exclusively to parents of small children. After all, she is a mother herself and knows how difficult it can sometimes be to balance work with private life.

A few days later, Jacek submitted his resignation. He said bluntly that he did not want to work in a place where employees are treated worse simply because they do not have children. He also announced that he “would not let this go.”

Matylda found herself in a bind.

She does not know how to assess which reason is sufficient to make an exception, or to whom such an exception can be denied. And what principle should she adopt to protect the firm’s interests on one hand, while not exposing herself to allegations from employees on the other.

Is Remote Work an Employee’s Right or Just the Employer’s Goodwill?

The issue of remote work was formally regulated after the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatively recently, in 2023, remote work appeared in the Labor Code, providing the possibility of making work organization more flexible.

At the same time, employees gained the right to so-called occasional remote work. This occasionality should not exceed 24 days per calendar year. An employee who wishes to use this should submit an appropriate request to the employer each time.

Crucially, however – such a request is not binding for the employer. This means the firm may refuse, for example, if:

• the organization of work in the firm excludes remote work,
• the nature of a given employee’s duties requires their personal presence in the office,
• specific business needs of the firm argue for a refusal.

In our story – the new, demanding client and the need for close team cooperation – may justify a refusal.

Privileged Groups of Employees – Must One Always Agree to Remote Work?

Yes and no.

Indeed, regulations provide a special entitlement in this regard for selected groups of employees. This applies, among others, to:

• pregnant women,
• parents of children up to 4 years of age,
• parents of children with disabilities,
• caregivers of other family members.

In their case, the regulations indicate that the employer should grant the request for remote work. But this is not an absolute obligation. The employer may still refuse.

Among other instances, this applies when a given job is not suitable to be performed remotely. For example, if Zosia in Matylda’s firm manages the reception and her duties cannot be moved home – the firm may refuse her remote work, even if Zosia is pregnant.

The nature of the work justifies a refusal of remote work.

Similarly, if the entire firm is operating on-site due to a project, the employer is not obliged to agree to remote work – even if the request is submitted by Agnieszka, who is the mother of 2-year-old Jaś.

In such situations, however, the firm must justify its refusal in writing. This ensures that every employee knows and understands why – specifically – their request was not granted by the employer.

Where Did Matylda Make a Mistake?

The risk in Matylda’s story does not stem from the restriction of remote work itself. The problem is the manner in which Matylda began granting exceptions.

The problem is making exceptions for employees.

Matylda’s decision to allow more frequent remote work exclusively for parents creates a privileged group of employees. And this opens the door for other employees to make allegations of unequal treatment.

Because from the perspective of the law:

• employees should be treated equally,
• and any criteria for differentiation must be objective and justified.

Having children will usually not be a sufficient justification to treat employees-parents differently than employees who do not have children. In practice, this means a real risk of claims for the firm – such as those announced by Jacek.

How to Regulate Remote Work in Such a Situation to Avoid the Trap?

It is worth considering several scenarios.

Firstly, the firm can introduce a uniform hybrid work model for everyone. And then, all employees have a specified number of remote work days to use. The same number, regardless of whether they are parents, caregivers, or have no children at all.

This solution is beneficial for the employees and for the firm.

From the firm’s side – it eliminates the need to assess “whose reason is more important.” From the team’s side – it limits the risk of conflicts and allegations of unequal treatment.

Consistency is key here. Exceptions – if they appear – should concern truly special situations (e.g., random life events where the alternative to remote work is sick leave).

Secondly, the firm can completely resign from remote work and ask all employees to return to the office.

This solution is safe from the point of view of legal risk. But at the same time, it carries other threats, including frustration within the team or even the loss of key employees.