Responding to Work-From-Home Accommodation Requests In a Post-COVID Environment

This blog post was first published by the Illinois State Bar Association in September 2025 in various of its ISBA Section Newsletters, including on Labor & Employment Law.

Requesting to work from home (WFH) as an accommodation under the ADA is not new. Employees have made similar requests under different names like “telework” for decades. What is new is the aftermath of COVID. For many companies, the vast majority of staff worked from home for up to a year or longer, and by many accounts things seemed to basically “work,” though more recently many businesses have reimposed more in-person requirements.

So, how have the period of fully remote work during COVID and subsequent common use of hybrid policies (e.g., 2-3 days in person, 2-3 days remote) affected ADA accommodation requests? When faced with a WFH request as an accommodation (either fully remote or more remote than is permitted under a hybrid policy), is it now harder for employers to argue that in-person work is an essential job function? As the case law continues to develop, the answer appears to be yes – it is harder to make these arguments, and companies should expect more scrutiny and fact-intensive inquiries, especially at the summary judgment stage.

The basic legal framework.

Under the ADA, when an employee requests an accommodation for a disability, the employer and employee are required to engage in the “interactive process” to determine whether they can agree on a reasonable accommodation that makes it (1) possible for the employee to perform the essential functions of the job (with the accommodation), and yet (2) does not cause the employer an undue hardship.[1] If the employee cannot perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation, they are not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under the ADA. And if a requested accommodation causes the employer an undue hardship, it need not be granted.[2] This article looks at how a few recent courts have treated employer claims that in-person work is still an essential job function, despite the prevalence of remote work during and after the pandemic.

The Rise of WFH, Accelerated by COVID

Courts have long held that workplace attendance is a fundamental requirement of most jobs. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Smithson v. Austin: “We have repeatedly held that an employer may require attendance at the job site as an essential requirement of the job.”[3]

But then COVID hit, and tens of thousands of companies sent the vast majority of their staff home for an extended period. Zoom became a household name. In many cases, corporate financials were seemingly unaffected by the switch to remote work, and companies praised the ability of staff to pivot. The talk was that things were never going back to the days of 5 days/week of in-person work, and by some accounts, less than half of US companies now require full-time, in-person work.

More recently, many companies have called workers back onsite closer to 5 days per week, citing loss of team culture, productivity, and more. In so doing, corporate leaders are essentially saying that fully or mostly remote arrangements are not working. But have things been “not working” enough to reestablish or reinforce the notion that in-person work is an essential job function? How have courts addressed the issue?

Earlier this year, the Eastern District of Wisconsin took up the essential job function issue in Bridges v. City of Milwaukee.[4] There, a manager requested to work exclusively from home and/or in a private on-site office (with all work being handled exclusively by phone/video). Eventually, her supervisor discontinued the requested accommodation, finding that her position required direct, front-office supervision of her subordinates.

In denying the employee’s partial summary judgment motion, the Court explained: “Courts have historically assumed that remote work is not a reasonable accommodation, but ‘technological advances have made working from home more feasible. Now, [d]etermining whether a specific job has essential functions that require in-person work has become much more of a case-specific inquiry.’”[5] Unresolved fact issues included whether the essential job functions required being physically present with the staff being managed (as opposed to virtual/phone interactions).[6] The Court also held that relying indefinitely on a co-supervisor to cover any in-person functions was not reasonable, and further cast doubt on the “it worked during COVID” argument: “the fact that many employees were able to work remotely temporarily when forced to do so by a global health crisis does not mean that those jobs do not have essential functions that require in-person work over the medium to long term.”[7]

At least one other court, however, has found COVID in-person workarounds to be potentially instructive for accommodation requests. In Donley v. McDonough, the Court described how during the pandemic, certain supervisors alternated in-person days, and at least one other supervisor managed employees solely by having meetings by phone and meeting in person every two months.[8] Summary judgment for the employer was therefore inappropriate, for “[t]he experiences of past and current workers further raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the plaintiff] could perform the essential functions of her job without being present.”[9]

Similarly, in Cowell v. Ill. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., the Court denied an employer’s summary judgment motion, stating that while “[h]istorically, the Seventh Circuit has held that, in general, working at home is not a reasonable accommodation, . . . with the advent of technology and the Covid-19 pandemic which led to telework advancements, assessing whether in-person attendance is an essential function of a job requires context-specific analysis.”[10] The Court also found that although a manager testified in deposition that “coordinating patient care required staff to meet locally”, the plaintiff’s “job description did not mention coordinating patient care…”[11] Moreover, the Court found that the employer could not counter (for purposes of summary judgment at least) the employee’s testimony that she “routinely worked remotely from her encrypted cell phone,” and “primarily performed the essential job functions of coordinating with outside facilities via phone, email, and other “remote communication methods.”[12]

Takeaways and Practical Tips

While the case law will doubtless continue to evolve on this issue, it does appear that summary judgment in WFH accommodation cases will be harder for employers to obtain in a post-COVID environment. Establishing a clean record of undisputed material facts is always difficult; after 5 years of fully remote and hybrid working models, it may be even more so on the issue of whether in-person work is an essential job function.

The above cases also warrant reemphasizing some of the tried-and-true best practices in this space:

• Ensure that written policies on WFH are clearly articulated and consistently applied. There is a natural tendency to leave things flexible or be more lax with certain staff (e.g., star performers), but if these inconsistencies surface in discovery, they may forestall any chance for an employer to prevail at summary judgment (or trial).

• Think about how to document and later prove what actually are the essential job functions of a role. Review job descriptions. Including in-person attendance in a job description is not itself dispositive, but both courts and the EEOC consider it as probative evidence alongside other factors.[13]

• Follow the interactive process. When an employer denies the accommodation requested without engaging with the employee, the employer risks losing on the issue even if they would have ultimately been correct that the accommodation was not reasonable.

The above steps require careful, proactive work on the front end, often months to years before an issue surfaces. Sometimes a specific employee situation even warrants slowing down or reversing a planned adverse employment action – rarely something HR or supervisors like to hear. But the alternatives (years of litigation, potential adverse verdicts) can be far worse, and it is worth investing the effort on the front end.

---

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/ada-your-responsibilities-employer

[2] Employers can, of course, also make undue hardship arguments when faced with WFH accommodation requests.  That is beyond the scope of this article, but for opinions addressing the issue in the somewhat analogous Title VII religious accommodation context, see: Jackson v. NY State Off. of Mental Health, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79748 (E.D. N.Y. 2024); Langer v. Hartland Bd. of Educ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167136 (D. Conn. 2023) (denying motion to dismiss in Title VII religious accommodations case in part because teacher pointed out she successfully taught fully remotely during the pandemic); and West v. Legacy Health, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171099, at *11-12 (D. Ore. 2024).   

[3] Smithson v. Austin, 86 F. 4th 815, 821 (7th Cir. 2023)( (citing several other cases).

[4] Bridges v. City of Milwaukee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24216, at *16-17 (E.D. Wis. 2025) (quoting Kinney v. St. Mary’s Health, Inc., 76 F. 4th 635, 644 (7th Cir. 2023)). 

[5] Id. (quoting Kinney v. St. Mary’s Health, Inc., 76 F. 4th 635, 644 (7th Cir. 2023)). 

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at *13-16.  This is also consistent with the established principle that employers are not required to hire additional staff as a reasonable accommodation.  See Leibas v. Dart, 108 F.4th 1021, 1026 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Sieberns v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 125 F.3d 1019, 1022 (7th Cir. 1997)).

[8] Donley v. McDonough, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85903, at *18 (N.D. Ill. 2024)

[9] Id. 

[10] Cowell v. Ill. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24472 (S.D. Ill. 2024).   

[11] Id. at *36-37.

[12] Id.

[13] 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Cowell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *36-37.

In-House Counsel: Your Organization’s Family Doctor

“What do you do, exactly?” If you’re an in-house counsel, you’ve probably had colleagues ask a version of this question. Many people’s idea of lawyers is what they see on TV. Aside from the fact that legal dramas typically focus on the courtroom—a place most in-house counsel rarely visit—legal dramas by design portray splashy moments, not the ordinary reality of life behind the scenes: doing your part to help your organization manage risk and succeed in its mission.

When I served as in-house counsel of a global non-profit, I developed another way of explaining our work. While people weren’t always sure what to make of “in-house counsel,” they could all relate to the idea of a family doctor.

A family doctor helps take care of you when something goes wrong—but also helps keep you well. As a mom, I’ve had plenty of experiences of bringing my child to see the doctor—yes, when there’s a tummy ache or rash that needs eyes on it, so we can keep things from getting worse—but also, to receive guidance that could ensure growth is on track, or a vaccine to keep her from getting sick.  

In-house counsel does the same thing for an organization. It helps treat the problems that arise to ensure minimal damage—but ideally, also helps prevent problems from arising in the first place and empowers the organization to reach its goals. These concepts of treatment and prevention correspond to key roles of in-house counsel:

• Serve the people within the organization, helping them address the every-day needs and problems they bring.

• Safeguard the organization itself, protecting and stewarding the mission, brand and other resources

You might go to a family doctor when something is wrong, just like your in-house customers should come to you if something is wrong. For example:

• A data breach

• A misconduct report

• Potential legal action, like a threat from a vendor

But if that was the only time your in-house customers talked to you, you’d have your hands full managing crises and putting out fires!

Just as family doctors help families stay well, for example, by scheduling routine check-ups with children and providing preventative care, in-house counsel can play an invaluable role in promoting organizational health. For every risk that materializes or crises that occurs, you can probably think of steps upstream that might have prevented the problem. Things like:

• Appropriate policies

• Efficient processes

• Clear decision-making authority

And of course, not all day-to-day demand for legal services corresponds to a problem. Just as we might ask a trusted doctor to help us reach our goals—what do I do now to help me be healthy and active when my kids are adults?— in-house counsel can play a critical role in helping the organization seize opportunities.

Your most valuable service may be your ability to listen, discern, and ask good questions. Your best legal guidance likely comes not in how to handle a problem that has already happened, but when you participate in strategic planning and risk mitigation conversations, and can point out issues and address potential roadblocks, saving your colleagues untold grief. How to explain to colleagues when they should come to you? We intuitively understand the benefits of seeking proactive medical help for prevention and reaching our goals—vaccines, healthy habits. It’s the same thing with in-house legal counsel.

It can be hard to make time, or get buy-in, for the kind of preventative, proactive work of helping an organization stay well, but investments here tend to pay off in orders of magnitude. Perhaps using this model of a family doctor can be a useful tool in communicating you value you add in a language your colleagues understand.

---

If you have any questions about this article or need counsel on the issues addressed in it, please contact Jeannie Rose Barksdale by emailing jeannierose@ch-llp.com.

Tips for Conducting Effective CEO Interviews in Internal Investigations

How do you interview a CEO for an internal investigation? Efficiently and professionally.

I’ve had several opportunities to interview CEOs and founders in internal investigations and have learned a few things.

 1. Get to the Point.

Normally interviews start with pleasantries and rapport building. In the case of CEOs, time is of the essence. I have learned that you will gain the most trust with them by getting to the meat and potatoes. Save the throat clearing and small talk for other interviews.

2. Let Them Know Where We Are Going.

Any good lawyer knows that executives loathe lawyer memos and long emails laying out every conceivable risk and options (without sharing an actual opinion). Executives just want the executive summary--preferably in bullet points. In the same way, be up front with CEOs about the process, their role, and how long the interview is going to take. If you are up front and they are aware of when this train gets to the station, they are more likely to be present in the process.

3. Give Them Control Upfront.

CEOs love control. They are used to control. They do not like interviews with lawyers and they definitely do not like interviews with lawyers where they have no control. So, give them control. Open the floor first for them to share whatever they want to share about the situation. By giving them control, you will likely learn a lot about their temperament, the issue, and what is foremost on their mind. You can then take the conversation from that point onward to areas you would like to discuss.

4. Be Direct and Concrete.

If there are allegations and statements that have been attributed to the CEO or close confidents, ask about them directly and verbatim. This is not the time to generalize or be sloppy. Give them specific and detailed examples and allow the CEO to respond. Listen carefully and respond accordingly.

The more you are a professional and treat the time with CEO seriously and substantively, the more you will respect their time and the more they will be willing to participate more fully in the interview.

---

Before joining C+H, San Diego Partner Juan Castañeda spent years in Big Law and with the Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor.  For more information on his background and experience, please visit https://ch-llp.com/about-juan-castaneda.

Phone and Laptop Searches at the Border

Did CBP ask to search your phone or laptop when entering the United States?  There’s a pretty good chance federal law enforcement is investigating you or your employer.

For FY2024, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection processed 420 million travelers at ports of entry.

3% (just over 12.6 million travelers) were referred to secondary inspection (i.e. given additional scrutiny by officers).

.01% (47,047 travelers) had their electronic devices searched.

Border searches usually don’t happen at random. 

And the law governing border searches of electronic devices is complicated and still developing.  Some circuits require reasonable suspicion.  Others no suspicion. In all cases, the search has to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  

Internal DHS policies govern how the search is to be conducted, the timeline for getting your devices back, and other issues like whether a taint team is required to screen for attorney-client privileged materials.

So what should you do if CBP asks to search your phone or laptop at the border?  The answer will vary based on circumstances.  Are you a U.S. Citizen returning home?  A foreign national seeking admission?  An attorney carrying sensitive client information?

In all cases, you will want to be cooperative while also exercising your rights.  For example, you don’t have to provide your password, but if you don’t CBP can and likely will exclude or detain your device.  If you are a foreign national seeking admission, they might deny admission and send you home.  

If you or your employee’s phone or laptop are detained at the border, you will need sound counsel with experience in border searches and DHS policies and procedures.  If you are an employer sending employees abroad, it makes sense to think through and implement internal policies and procedures governing the carrying of electronic devices containing sensitive corporate information.

---

Before joining C+H, C+H Dallas Partner Rob Dunikoski spent years advising Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) special agents on these and other complicated customs law issues.  For more information on his background and experience, please visit https://ch-llp.com/about-rob-dunikoski.

Non-Profit 101: Protecting Your Non-Profit in Challenging Times

Five Steps to Prepare for Uncertainty

“Paperwork saves lives” – it was a frequent refrain in the back-office of the international non-profit where I served as General Counsel. It reminded us that our paperwork, ensuring finances, governance filings, and policies were in order, was critical to enabling our organization to achieve its mission, impacting—even saving—real human lives.

In a climate where the charity sector is facing increased uncertainty and scrutiny coupled with the potential loss of key funding, this has never been more true. Having paperwork in order is a key way you can protect your non-profit and help it stay focused on mission.

I’ve seen this in action many times. Sometimes it is invisible—as when an organization quietly provides timely and accurate government filings year after year, never drawing scrutiny. Sometimes it is louder—like an allegation of improper spending and sweetheart deals that is quickly put to rest by immediate production of Board minutes, conflict policy and disclosures, and contract terms. For a charity working in an environment of increased scrutiny on civil society, something I witnessed many times with international partners, survival could depend on taking care to avoid providing any non-compliance hook to hang an investigation or review hat on. For all charities, ensuring paperwork ducks are in a row before scrutiny comes is just smart risk management.

Guidance from a recent training on helping nonprofits navigate evolving issues in the sector, by the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, rang true to what I’ve seen in practice. I’ve simplified the guidance to five key steps nonprofits can take now to be prepared.

1. Know which federal actions apply to your organization 

   Does it impact funding? Beneficiaries? Programs? Is the action in question legally binding and in effect? This may require you to assign someone to monitor federal actions, as they’re changing at a dizzying pace. (Hint: The Council on Non-Profits has a good tracker to help follow relevant executive orders and legal challenges in effect, as well as other practical resources.)

2. Do a risk assessment

   Once you know which executive orders in effect may impact you, assess whether anything within your organization is at odds with them. Review federal grants and contracts—what are the terms related to cancellation and any remedies you have? Review your organization’s policies and governance practices. Ensure Board and committee meetings are documented. (Hint: Form 990 Part 6 provides a good outline of basic good governance practices to check for.)

3. Make sure your documents and practice line up—with each other, and with the law

   Are your purposes as documented in your tax exemption application (1023), governing documents (bylaws, articles of incorporation), annual reporting (990), and other communication materials (website, annual report) actually charitable in nature? Do they reflect what you are actually doing? (Hint: Don’t forget to complete any required Form 990 schedules; a missing schedule can be a red flag for reviewers attracting unwanted attention.)

4. Avoid unnecessary red flags 

   Don’t inadvertently create cause for concern by making missteps in common areas. (Hint: This covers a wide range of compliance concerns!) For example:

   • Ensure you are properly characterizing employees and contractors.

   • If you’re earning revenue, evaluate whether it is triggers UBIT (the “unrelated business income tax”) and report it if so.

   • Stay charitable: Don’t cross the line from an Advocacy organization (permitted) to Action organization (not permitted). Don’t control in any joint venture to the for-profit partner.

   • Don’t permit private benefit: Ensure you have reasonable compensation. Ensure you have a conflict policy, expense reimbursement policy, travel policy and appropriate review processes. If you provide grants or scholarships, ensure you have the right processes and criteria.

   • Report overseas activity as required and exert appropriate oversight to ensure it is all for your charitable purposes and no impermissible purposes (e.g., financing terrorism).

5. Don’t Lie

   Making any kind of misstatement regarding a federal matter (for example, on your Form 990) could open you to investigation, and even potential criminal action. Make sure your government filings are accurate. In the event you’re subject to any kind of government inquiry, take care not to make any kind of false statement, however innocuous it may seem—just ask for the reason behind the inquiry and state that you need to speak with counsel. (Hint: If you receive an examination letter from the government, seek professional advice to ensure you learn as much as possible about what is being sought and why, and don’t volunteer documents beyond the request made.) 

   This can be a lot of work—and paperwork may be (unfairly, in my opinion!) shorthand for ‘boring,’ but taking care of these kinds of documents could be the critical preparation that allows your organization to continue serving your community in challenging times. The good news is it is all doable, and you’re not alone. If you’re ready to dive in, reach out to request a compliance checklist to guide you, with key areas to review and questions to ask.

---

We’re here to help! To schedule a free 30 minute consultation, contact non-profit law expert Jeannie Rose Barksdale – jeannierose@ch-llp.com 

The Top 4 Issues to Be Aware of When Doing an Internal Investigation

“So you are the great lawyer I’ve been told about! But, you are so young! I was expecting an old lawyer.”

With those words, the silver-haired senior-level executive of the customs broker I was investigating for bribery let me know that his guard was down. In fact, he

seemed relieved and almost eager to help me, a young lawyer that reminded him of his nephew.

This was exactly the reaction I wanted. We exchanged pleasantries in Spanish over a cup of coffee and proceeded to have a friendly free-flowing conversation. That conversation revealed that his company was bribing government officials in Latin America, he was a liar, and he had no idea that he had just given me the evidence I needed when I went up the chain to confront his boss. He never saw it coming.

There are many articles on best practices for conducting internal investigations related to bribery or fraud. However, at the core of any internal investigation— whether it be domestic or cross-border is—people. The people at the center of the investigation (employees, former employees, third party vendors, government officials or lawyers) are the key to unlocking the real story behind what has really happened. Faced with a whistleblower tip of bribery or fraud, a company will undoubtedly look at the underlying documents that paint a scattered picture of events, but it is the people that weave the documents together to tell the story. 

Here are some tips on the best ways to set-up witnesses interviews during an internal investigation for optimal effect.

 1. Start with the Low-Hanging Fruit.

Any good investigation looks like a pyramid. Ideally, start your internal interviews on the ground floor with lower-level personnel. Why? First, they will most likely be further removed from the fraud being perpetrated by senior management and thus, more forthcoming about facts.

Second, the ground troops may be actual witnesses to executive-level fraud and more than willing to blow the whistle on management if given an opportunity.

 Third, line employees possess great real-time information of the daily happenings within the company, where data is located, as well as a more accurate view of the “real” heirarcy in a company. Interviewing these witnesses will be useful in recreating who may be behind the fraud, the centers of power within a company that could have known of the fraud, and where the web of deceit extends.

2. Pick a Location that Puts Them at Ease.

If you are going to interview any company employee (be it lower-level personnel or senior executive), find a location that will put them at ease. If it makes sense, talk to them at their workplace in a discrete conference room or set-up a meeting at a neutral location. Do not conduct the interview at a lawyer’s office. Pick a location that is open, bright and pleasant to be in. Aside from location, be a good host.

Coordinate logistics (via phone, not email) so that food, refreshments and ample parking are available.

While it may seem trite: environment matters. You do not want your potential key witness to arrive at a location and feel instantly uncomfortable by the set-up.

Instead, you want to prime your witness from the start to feel good about what he or she is walking into and who they are meeting. Your interview and information will flow more freely if the witness is at ease.

For example, the interview that was conducted in the opening scene was held in a United States border town with Mexico, but in a beautiful Spanish style office adorned with Mexican art work, a friendly receptionist and plenty of food and coffee as hospitality. It set the tone for the “warm” conversation that took place thereafter.

3. The Interviewer Should Bring the Element of Surprise.

Let’s be honest, lawyers often think that the best way to get anything done is to be the loudest dog in the block. That may be the case in an adversarial proceeding with a person that can be easily intimidated to cave or in a cross-examination at trial. However, in most internal investigations, lawyers are dealing with witnesses from whom the lawyer wants information.

In such a scenario, the old adage is true: “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” Thus, to get optimal information from a witness in an internal investigation, the interviewing lawyer should be non-threatening, friendly, and good with people.

As in the opening scenario, the senior executive that I was interviewing came with his guard up fully expecting to go toe-to-toe with a hardened lawyer. Instead, he found himself with a young friendly lawyer who treated him with respect. As a result, his apprehensions, anxiety and defensiveness melted away. In his mind, he had nothing to fear and information flowed my way. Information that was key for my later interviews and which confirmed to me that this friendly avuncular executive was lying.

4. Know Your Facts Cold.

Based on outward appearances, the attorney conducting your internal investigation interview should be pleasant and non-combative. However, behind the scenes, your interviewer should be prepared for anything. The single best way of preparing for the unexpected is to know the key facts cold.

In depth preparing would include:

• Collecting all key documents (especially emails and personnel files)

• Creating a list of key players

• Reviewing and analyzing prior interviews

• Diagramming organizational charts and hierarchy structure

• Compiling a chronology of events

• Mapping pertinent locations

• Charting key processes and relevant products related to the fraud

• Compiling a vocabulary list of key business terms

• Researching U.S. and foreign laws related to privacy, attorney-client privilege, and the myriad of legal issues touching on the proported fraud

• Creating an investigation plan that tracks key witnesses, issues, potential offenses, documents, and questions that need to be answered

Why prepare? Plain and simple, thorough preparation and knowledge of the universe of facts is the single best way for the interviewer to spot an inconsistency, contradiction or bold-faced lie. Moreover, preparation creates confidence. A prepared investigating lawyer will not be spending his or her time making sense of basic information, but will be thoroughly present to connect with the witness.

Before joining C+H, San Diego Partner Juan Castañeda spent years in Big Law and with the Department of Justice.  For more information on his background and experience, please visit https://ch-llp.com/about-juan-castaneda.

Non-Profit 101: Turning Your Non-Profit Vision into Reality

Five Questions to Ask Before Starting a Non-Profit

1. Have I actually thought through what kind of organization I want to start? 

   Deciding to “start a non-profit” presumes you have already answered a host of questions—and assumes a non-profit is the right approach for you. But is it? The legal form should be a tool to further your goals. Make sure you’ve thought through the implications before you start something new. The answers could change what you actually start!  

2. What am I trying to accomplish?

   To decide what kind of organization to start, get clarity on your goal. Just because you want to do good doesn’t necessarily mean you should be a non-profit, just like the desire to sell goods or services doesn’t necessarily make you a company. There are many ways to pursue mission, for example: non-profit, LLC with a social purpose, LLC owned by an existing charity, B Corporation (a form of entity signaling a company’s commitment to a financial and social bottom line), B Corp certification (which certifies a company meets certain social good standards).   

   What is your overall mission, the north star that will guide you long-term —and what are the tactics that may change over time? How will you fund your dream? Who will call the shots? Who do you hope to engage?  

   The more you flesh out your vision, the more you can answer . . .  

3. What advantages and disadvantages matter to me? 

   A quick search will give you the main advantages of being a tax-exempt non-profit: 

   • Tax benefits for the entity: it usually is not taxed on revenue, and may be exempt from tax in other areas, like property, sales, or hotel. 

   • Tax benefits for donors: people are often incentivized to make contributions because of the personal benefit they receive on contributions. 

   • Halo effect: non-profits may enjoy a reputational boost. People feel good about them. 

   But only you can decide how and when these matter to you, in light of your actual goals. For example, how important are the tax considerations for your donors if they don’t itemize taxes, or if your primary income isn’t from donations? 

   The main restriction is about what happens to the money: in a tax-exempt entity, profit goes back to the mission, and cannot be used for private benefit. Are you willing to forego personal profit and put all funds back into your mission? 

   Tax-exempt organizations are also subject to greater oversight and have less flexibility. For many, the trade-offs are worth it. Before you start, make sure they are worth it for you. 

4. Should I form something or join something? 

   Even if you want to do charitable work, is starting a new non-profit the best way to accomplish your mission? Forming a tax-exempt entity takes time and paperwork. There are avenues for accelerating launching charitable programs that might be a better fit, such as a fiscal sponsorship arrangement. 

5. Do I need help thinking through these questions?

   Getting clear, thoughtful answers to these questions will set the tone for whatever you launch. It may feel like a lot of pressure. But you’re not alone. All of these questions can be helpful to discuss with a trusted advisor who has walked through these questions before.  

   We’re here to help! To schedule a free 30 minute consultation, contact non-profit law expert Jeannie Rose Barksdale – jeannierose@ch-llp.com