I’m thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a renowned political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who heads Government Curated. With his deep expertise in federal employment law and disability rights, Donald offers unparalleled insights into the recent controversial changes at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding telework policies for employees with disabilities. In this conversation, we explore the implications of these policy shifts, the legal concerns surrounding them, and the broader impact on federal workers with disabilities, while delving into the intersection of policy, civil rights, and workplace accommodations.
How did the recent CDC policy change on telework as a reasonable accommodation come about, and what does it mean for employees with disabilities?
The CDC recently announced a policy that effectively bars employees with disabilities from applying for telework as a reasonable accommodation. According to the American Federation of Government Employees locals 2883 and 3840, this also means existing telework agreements won’t be renewed once they expire. For many employees who relied on telework to manage their disabilities, this is a significant blow. It strips away a critical tool that allowed them to perform their duties effectively, often leaving them without viable alternatives to maintain their roles while accommodating their needs.
Why have the unions described this policy as a major civil rights violation?
The unions see this as a profound violation because it directly undermines protections enshrined in federal disability laws, like the Rehabilitation Act, which mandates reasonable accommodations unless they pose an undue hardship. They argue this policy also contradicts guidance from a directive during President Trump’s first term that explicitly exempted individuals with disabilities from broad telework restrictions. By imposing a blanket denial of telework, the CDC appears to disregard the individual assessments these laws require, which the unions view as a systemic attack on the rights of disabled federal workers.
From a legal standpoint, why is a blanket denial of telework requests considered problematic for new and existing agreements?
Legally, a blanket denial is problematic because it fails to account for individual circumstances, which is a cornerstone of disability accommodation law. Each request must be evaluated on its own merits—whether it’s a new application or a renewal of an existing agreement. If telework was previously granted, it’s typically because it was deemed reasonable and effective. Denying renewals without reassessment, or rejecting new requests outright, violates the principle of personalized evaluation and could be seen as a clear breach of legal obligations under federal statutes.
What’s behind the reported five-month delay in processing reasonable accommodation requests at the CDC?
The unions have pointed to significant staffing issues, particularly layoffs at the CDC’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office, as a key factor in this delay. With fewer personnel to handle these requests, the backlog has grown, leaving employees with disabilities in limbo. This isn’t just a bureaucratic hiccup—it means workers are potentially going without necessary accommodations for months, which can severely impact their ability to do their jobs or maintain their health and well-being.
Beyond losing telework, how are CDC employees with disabilities being affected by this policy shift?
The impact goes far beyond just telework. The unions have raised concerns about heightened risks of retaliation and discrimination, where employees might face disciplinary actions if they can’t comply with in-person mandates without accommodations. They’ve described it as a no-win situation—employees are caught between risking their health or job performance by coming into the office, or facing potential repercussions for advocating for their needs. This creates a hostile environment that can erode trust and morale among the workforce.
Can you tell us about the temporary telework allowance after the August 8 shooting at the CDC’s Atlanta campus and how it played into these broader policy changes?
Following the tragic shooting at the Atlanta campus on August 8, where a gunman opposed to COVID-19 vaccines killed a responding officer before taking his own life, the CDC allowed headquarters employees to work from home for about a month. This was likely a safety measure to stabilize the situation and ensure employee well-being after such a traumatic event. However, staff were ordered back to in-person work shortly after, which aligns with the broader push to limit telework—even for those with disabilities—highlighting the tension between temporary exceptions and the new restrictive policy.
What broader changes or trends at the CDC and in the federal workforce are contributing to the challenges faced by employees with disabilities?
The CDC has been under significant upheaval, especially since the start of President Trump’s second term. Beyond this telework policy, there’s been an executive order stripping collective bargaining rights for many federal employees, including at the CDC, under the guise of national security. Additionally, leadership changes and policy shifts, like the termination of union contracts by the Health and Human Services Department, have created an unstable environment. These moves signal a broader trend of prioritizing in-person work and reducing employee protections, which disproportionately impacts those with disabilities who rely on accommodations to thrive in their roles.
What is your forecast for the future of workplace accommodations for federal employees with disabilities given these recent developments?
I think we’re at a critical juncture. If policies like the CDC’s telework ban become a precedent, we could see a rollback of hard-won protections for federal employees with disabilities across agencies. There’s likely to be increased litigation as unions and individuals challenge these blanket denials, and I anticipate courts will play a significant role in determining whether these policies hold up under scrutiny of federal disability laws. On the flip side, advocacy and public pressure could push for legislative or executive action to reinforce accommodations. The outcome will hinge on how much priority is given to equity and inclusion versus operational mandates in the coming years.
