I have not, no, this is just guesswork, but the reasoning is how much of an unknown quantity the covid risk still is. If Bob's doctor says it's not safe for Bob to return to the office because Bob's wife had a pulmonary embolism two years ago, who's to say the doctor is wrong? If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review?
But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case, just that conjuring up the specter of medical necessity might change things if they were only loosely committed. And I don't think this is duplicitous: I think a very likely outcome for a lot of big corporations will be a "mandatory" return to the office which, in practice, is so riddled with exemptions that everyone who wants to wfh is allowed to.
I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably sure you can't get 'reasonable accommodations' of much substance for a secret medical condition.
The crux of the issue, then, is whether the cost to OP's employer to allow OP to wfh is negligible or not. And I am assuming OP's position would be that their performance last year proves the cost is negligible, not that they demand an accommodation despite the cost.
There may be some broader context where this framework also applies, but absent that there wouldn't be a 'hook' to get it to apply to COVID-related WFH.
I'm not a lawyer, or a manager, but I'm not quite convinced. I think OP should have that conversation with their doctor first. Claiming to need WFH to be safe is sounds related to some anti-Covid vaccination arguments. If the company cares about safety they are probably going to take reopening safely seriously, if they don't take Covid seriously they won't like accepting the initial request.
Though the eeoc does say having any WFH program makes it more likely it could be a reasonable accommodation. And I think my employer is already thinking about accommodations when reopening. Getting WFH might be a good possibility if their doctor agrees it's needed. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasona...
I used to be a lawyer (though was never a labor/employment lawyer) and am having a hard time coming up with reasons it would be illegal to fire someone who refuses to come into the office for unspecified medical reasons.
It seems like you've thought about this quite a bit — what would the reasoning be? Employees have lots of protections, some of them related to medical conditions. For example, employees can get access to FML under the appropriate circumstances. But my understanding (having claimed such benefits for my family when babies were born) is that some sort of proof is required to establish eligibility.
Are there other benefits or protections that would not require this? Or is there a 'protected class' designation that could be claimed? For the record, I have no dog in this fight — I work for myself and don't have employees, so this doesn't affect me personally. I'm just curious what the arguments are for employees who want to remain remote.