I agree with you that the "right answer" here is incorrect. We know the company renovated to comply with government regulations. We have no basis to conclude anything at all about the company's employees -- in fact, we don't even know the company has any employees. It's a logical error to draw any conclusion about company employees from this passage, and if this were a real GMAT CR question, any answer about the needs of employees would be a trap answer.

Because the question made no sense, I read solutions posted elsewhere, including the original solution. Those solutions justify answer C by pointing out that it must be true: "Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees." And yes, that is true, because it says nothing. Maybe some doors were out of reach, and maybe not - that covers every possibility, so no one can argue with that. But that doesn't make C the right answer, because the question doesn't ask us what must be true. It asks us for an inference. That is, it asks us for something we can logically conclude based on the information in the passage. And answer C is true even if the passage contains no information at all, because it just says something "may" be true (but may not). If we had an answer that said "prior to the renovations, some employees may have had brown hair", that is obviously true, but it is not an inference from the information in the passage, and would not be a good answer here either.

The kind of answer I'd be looking for here is something similar to E - if we know the renovations were conducted to comply with the ADA, and those renovations included changes to computer equipment, then we can conclude the ADA requires some businesses to modify their computers, so some businesses without adaptive computer equipment are presumably in violation of the ADA. But that's not precisely what E says, so I don't like any of the answer choices.