Navigating Telework Accommodations for Federal Employees Under the Trump Administration

Telework is expected to be scaled back, but what will this mean for federal employees using it as a disability accommodation?

If you are a federal employee with a disability who has been allowed full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation, you might be wondering what will happen under the new administration. Based on the news, there is a legitimate concern that most telework will be revoked on day one (unless you are a bargaining unit employee with protections under the Collective Bargaining Agreement).

However, the federal government, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. For pregnancy- or childbirth-related conditions, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act also requires the federal government to provide reasonable accommodations to workers.

Telework can often be a reasonable accommodation, especially if your disability makes it difficult or impossible to work on-site, but you can perform the essential functions of your position while working from home.

If you have already been granted full-time telework as an accommodation, it will be difficult for the accommodation to be withdrawn.

The government may be able to withdraw full-time telework as reasonable accommodation in the following narrow circumstances:

1. Changes to the Essential Functions of Your Job

The essential functions of your job include the tasks that are fundamental to performing your job. Unless your job duties have significantly changed since your accommodation was granted, it will be difficult for the government to revoke your telework accommodation on this basis.

The EEOC has specified that a request to telework cannot be denied “solely because a job involves some contact and coordination with other employees.” In other words, the government cannot revoke your reasonable accommodation to telework solely because some aspects of your job include meeting with colleagues or supervisors. For previously approved accommodations, it will be more difficult for the government to show that your job’s essential functions have changed such that they can no longer be performed remotely.

2. The Government Determines There Are Alternative Accommodations that Would Be Equally Effective and Better Meet Its Business Needs

For example, you might have a disability, such as COPD, that required you to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though restrictions have been lifted, your disability might continue to place you at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and your doctor might continue to recommend full-time telework to prevent exposure as a reasonable accommodation.

Although the government is required to consider your request and engage in the interactive process, it might implement alternative accommodations that would enable you to safely return to the workplace such as alternative transit options, PPE, social distancing measures between workstations, and increased sanitation and cleaning throughout the building. Unless medical documentation shows that alternative accommodations (e.g., private workstations, increased sanitation) are ineffective, the government is likely to be able to offer those instead of telework when business needs require an employee to work in the office (e.g., supervisors are required to work in person). Dalton C. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2022004164, 2023 WL 9190264, *5 (Dec. 14, 2023).

3. An Undue Hardship for the Government in Providing Your Reasonable Accommodation Has Arisen

If your reasonable accommodation of full-time telework was previously approved, it will be difficult for the government to show that an undue hardship, which did not exist at the time your accommodation was approved, has arisen.

To establish that there is an undue hardship, the government will need to show that your reasonable accommodation “would cause significant difficulty or expense.” Some of the factors that are considered when evaluating undue hardship include:

  • The financial costs of providing the accommodation needed. Unless your full-time telework status requires a substantial financial cost to the Agency (given the Agency’s overall resources) and that cost did not exist or has substantially increased since your accommodation was initially approved, it will be difficult for the government to show that the cost of your accommodation is an undue burden on the government.
  • The overall operation of the employer and the impact of your accommodation on the operation. Again, unless there is a newly arisen change in the operation of the workplace or a new impact on how your accommodation impacts the operation of your workplace, it will be difficult for the government to show that your accommodation is an undue burden on the government.

4. Your Disability Status Has Changed, and You No Longer Need to Telework to Accommodate Your Disability

  • Example #1 – if you were granted full-time telework for knee-replacement surgery and recovery for a 6-week period, your accommodation may no longer be necessary after you have recovered.
  • Example #2 – if you were granted full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation due to a pregnancy-related condition, such as the medical need for bed rest, but you are no longer pregnant or recovering from childbirth, your accommodation may no longer be necessary.

Even if some of the conditions above are met, the government must engage with you in the interactive process to determine what reasonable accommodation it can provide based on any changes in circumstances (such as your job’s essential functions, a new undue hardship, or a change to your disability status).

Anna Kathryn (Barnes) Barry, an attorney with Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, P.C. (KCNF), is an accomplished civil rights attorney who is committed to advocating for workers’ rights and social justice. Her practice focuses on representing employees in cases involving discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace injustices.