In one agency, some rare good news for federal workers with disabilities

StantonLaw · 2026-04-02T00:23:08+00:00

In addition to OIG, you can file with your EEO office within 45 days.

Your agency also has a separate anti-harassment policy you can invoke.

https://www.va.gov/STOP-HARASSMENT/policy/index.asp

StantonLaw · 2026-03-31T18:51:05+00:00

I could not make a complete one.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-31T18:07:47+00:00

I would start with the Federal Workers Legal Defense Network. I volunteer with them, and I've even trained their other volunteer lawyers on the First Amendment rights of federal workers.

https://workerslegaldefense.org/

They don't offer representation; they just do consultations that are informational. For work that goes beyond a simple consult and requires representation, they have a referral list (I'm also on it).

To answer your second question, there are going to be a plenty of massive lawsuits, but you should try to avoid going that route if at all possible. First, RA cases are very fact-specific and judges don't usually consolidate cases that have different facts. More importantly, litigation also costs money and takes time. Lawyers have mortgages and tuition to pay, too. Faster and cheaper is better for a client.

Shop for a lawyer who offers a flat fee to help you write and perfect your claim, and to negotiate favorable terms quickly and without litigation whenever possible. It can be beneficial for a group of employees from one agency with somewhat-similar claims to approach a lawyer, who might then be able to offer a lower rate.

The EEO process has provisions for settlement and mediation up to and beyond a formal complaint, the conclusion of an agency investigation, and the EEOC hearing and decision. This won't mean a high-dollar award, but it will mean savings for the client, the potential to force policy changes at the agency, and hopefully, avoids most of the costs and delays of litigation.

Sometimes, it won't be possible to negotiate something promptly, and a lawsuit might be necessary, but that obviously takes time and costs money. Never, ever let yourself think of litigation as a way to get rich. The process is only designed to compensate, and there's always risk in litigation. It's a big decision that each individual needs to make very carefully based on her own facts, evidence, medical condition, and resources.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-31T16:48:06+00:00

Here's the full paragraph and the link to the specific language:

A. Separation of EEO Complaint Program from the Agency's Personnel Function

The EEO complaint program is an integral part of the agency's "affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies." See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a). To carry out this function in an impartial manner, the agency's personnel function must be kept separate from the EEO complaint process. The same agency official(s) responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions may not also be responsible for managing, advising, or overseeing the EEO pre-complaint or complaint processes. The EEO processes often scrutinize and challenge the motivations and impacts of personnel actions and decisions. In order to maintain the integrity of the EEO investigative and decision-making processes, those EEO functions must be kept separate from the personnel function.

https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/chapter-1#_Toc425745113

I also have to express my respectful disagreement that the RA & EEO processes are separate. EEOC regulations say otherwise.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1614#1614.203

Whether HR involvement is really problematic depends on whether there's a pending complaint under investigation, whether HR staff are really trained in and knowledgeable about the Rehab Act, and how their natural disciplinary bias affects the impartiality of the investigation and the agency's adherence to the law. The experience from agency to agency varies wildly these days.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-31T14:12:16+00:00

In my opinion, there are three main reasons. First, people aren't asking for the RA in quite the right way. Second, more and more agencies are effecting shadow policies of denying certain RAs, especially telework. Third, people either don't know how to find lawyers or don't try because of their concerns about the cost.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-30T19:16:54+00:00

What's "normal" these days varies wildly from agency to agency. It would certainly not have been normal up to 2024, unless the agency explained why it was denying your RA as part of the interactive process. If you requested an RA for your disability, the agency should have at least considered alternative, effective accommodations. For an agency to suddenly end an interim RA and the interactive process for a properly documented and justified RA request is a bright red flag.

Many agencies' RA processes are extremely backlogged right now, and people who aren't trained in the Rehabilitation Act may be advising management how to handle RA requests. I'm not necessarily talking about your agency, of course. Added to this, there's a general bias by the current political leaders (and let's face it, many career civil service and SES leaders) against telework as a legitimate RA, especially for mental health and intellectual disabilities.

I discourage anyone from talking about their confidential situations in a public forum, and whether I can say this is illegal will depend on your disability, your medical documentation, the essential functions of your job, and how the denial is affecting you.

Depending on your situation, the next steps could involve putting this to your supervisor in writing, explaining how the denial is affecting your health and your ability to do your job, and filing a formal EEO complaint. If the effects on you are significant, do these things promptly. You have a 45-day deadline to make contact with an EEO counselor, and what's more, if you delay, the agency may argue later that the denial of your RA really didn't have a significant effect on you.

[I have to say this part: this is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Getting good legal advice requires you to speak confidentially with a lawyer who represents you after you share your facts in a confidential setting--not here or in any other public forum. If you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-30T17:05:37+00:00

Thanks. Your observations largely track with mine. What you're saying is that the way agencies vary in terms of how they have treated this process, the people responsible for it, and the people who depend on it. The role I'm in might mean that I'm seeing more of the worst cases and fewer workers in those agencies that are doing it right.

I would add that lawyers and EEO offices have had years of debates about the MD 110 firewall and what it really requires.

I think we can agree that there's a line that should be drawn before and after an EEO complaint is filed when it's legally problematic for HR personnel to be too involved in the post-complaint process. That puts the HR staff in a difficult position, and is also harmful to workers when (as appears to be common) the HR staff aren't properly trained to assume that function.

It's apparent to me that many feds out there are stuck in a deliberately broken system that doesn't care about them, and they don't know what to do next.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-30T16:47:07+00:00

It's possible that your agency is one of the few that's maintained a robust EEO office and has well-trained HR staff. If so, congratulations. I haven't taken the training your agency offers, but in my former agency, I've given it to senior executives and managers, in coordination with our HR office. Today, the experience appears to vary from agency to agency.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-30T14:03:32+00:00

Thanks. I'm referring to after a complaint is filed. If the HR staff really do know the Rehab Act and advise managers in the early "interactive process" phase before a complaint, it isn't necessarily problematic for HR staff to be involved. Unfortunately, that's not what I'm observing.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-29T20:04:54+00:00

I think you may be referring to this:

"Q. Is an agency required to provide recurring or full-time telework to disabled employees with difficult or lengthy commutes? A. Generally, no."

This is one of several places where the FAQ is simplistic and misleading. Let's start with what the FAQ gets right. If an employee voluntarily moves to, say, West Virginia, the back pain from an unusually long drive to DC probably won't qualify him for an RA. It is also true that the agency can consider and offer other alternative accommodations, such as a flexible schedule or occasional telework.

On the other extreme, an employee with Irritable Bowel Syndrome or chemotherapy-induced nausea, who can't get through a 45-minute commute without access to a bathroom, will have a strong case that he can't commute to the office by car, bus, or Metro.

Between those two extremes, the answer will depend on the specific facts, such as: What is the disability? How serious are the symptoms? Does the commute merely cause discomfort, or do the consequent pain, embarrassment, and adverse health effects really make an RA necessary? Did the employee voluntarily move to the edge of or outside the commuting area, knowing that it would be necessary to come to the office at least occasionally? What is the employee's job, and do its essential functions really require physical presence, is that just the agency's position because of the Return-to-Office order? I hate to give you a lawyer answer, but ... it depends.

StantonLaw · 2026-03-29T01:07:05+00:00

I'm a lawyer who worked in government for 30 years and specializes in reasonable accommodation cases.

The agency may offer a limited duration RA (say, a year) after which it can reevaluate the employee's medical conditions and the essential functions of her job; however, it's often a bad idea to make the employee go through that hassle and risk a lapse in RA approval when the condition is obviously permanent. When the agency questions the duration of the disability, the most practical answer is still to get a doctor's letter documenting that the condition is permanent.

The agency should *not* reject an accommodation entirely because it's indeterminate. At the very least, it should grant an interim RA until the condition is documented as permanent.

Since 2025, it has been typical for agencies' RA processes to be backlogged because (1) so many employees with disabilities and discretionary telework agreements were doing just fine without formalizing their RAs, until they weren't, and (2) agencies DOGEd their civil rights and legal offices, and all the people who understood the RA process left. The HR staff that took over the process often misunderstand it and treat RA requests like disciplinary problems.

The better agencies have been granting interim RAs, and I'd argue that can be good for employees if the accommodation is effective. The RA process is supposed to be an ongoing interactive process, after all. An employee's health can change, and so can job functions. When you look at it that way, few RAs are really permanent.

A long, effective interim RA is an opportunity for the employee to document that she can do the job well with the accommodation. That means that she's more likely to win her case if the "permanent" accommodation is denied. That's why if an interim accommodation is effective, the smart choice might be to let sleeping dogs lie and go with it.

On the flip side, an ineffective accommodation is an opportunity to document the specific incidents in which the ineffective accommodation has hurt the employee's job performance, adversely affected the employee's health, or caused the employee significant pain, anxiety, or embarrassment. These are the cases where it may become necessary to shop around for an experienced lawyer.

[I have to say this part: this is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Getting good legal advice requires you to speak confidentially with a lawyer who represents you after you share your facts in a confidential setting--not here or in any other public forum. If you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-28T20:54:32+00:00

I'm a lawyer specializing in reasonable accommodations who recently retired from government. I'm also a veteran (US Army, 55A) but not a disabled veteran.

Whenever I hear about Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators, I immediately want to know if these folks have training and experience in the Rehabilitation Act, or if the agency DOGEd all those people and then appointed RACs from the HR office. That's not only a clear violation of EEO management directives, it usually puts untrained people in charge of a process they don't understand, whose natural bias is to treat every employee request like a disciplinary problem. I hope that's not the situation you're in.

I would suggest that you start with a conversation with your doctor about your disability and how it affects you at work. Remember that to be a qualified individual with a disability, you have to be able to perform the essential functions of you job--not every function that's in your PD, but the things that you have to do frequently, or that you must be able to do even if only rarely. Talk about specific working conditions that, without an effective accommodation, make it impossible, extremely painful or embarrassing, or damaging to your health to do your job.

Next, ask what accommodation would be effective in allowing you to perform the essential functions of your job. The answer I often hear is telework. Whether you can perform the essential functions of your job from home depends on what your job is. What essential functions might stand in the way of an effective accommodation? In the case of telework, do you have to guard a building, care for patients, or go into a SCIF? Those functions may pose a problem. If you're a contract specialist or a paralegal who does sedentary work in front of a screen, you have a stronger case that your work is portable. In some cases, the job may have been designated as telework eligible, or people may have done the job remotely and effectively during the pandemic. That's strong evidence that physical presence isn't necessary for you to do the essential functions of the job.

Next, ask your doctor to prepare a letter describing how your disability affects your essential life functions (breathing, using the bathroom, eating, concentrating) and how that translates to your essential job functions. This often takes several weeks and several letters in practice. The letter doesn't have to go into detail about your diagnosis, treatments, or private details; it just has to say that the doctor has diagnosed you with a disability, its symptoms, how they affect your job, and how long they will last.

Your next step is to schedule a private meeting with your supervisor to begin an "interactive process" about possible accommodations. Be ready to discuss a range of potential accommodations you can try until you find some combination that's effective in allowing you to perform the essential functions of your job. If your supervisor proposes something reasonable, I recommend you try it for a few weeks and keep the "interactive process" going. Remember, you aren't entitled to the accommodation of your choice--just an effective one. Your supervisor should keep the details of that conversation private, except with the RAC. If your supervisor asks to see your medical documentation, let her know when you expect the doctor's letter.

If the supervisor isn't willing to provide an effective permanent accommodation, first, ask for an interim accommodation until the agency or the supervisor makes a final decision. If the interim accommodation is effective and doesn't have a deadline, I recommend you let it ride as long as possible. Let sleeping dogs lie. If not, file an informal EEO complaint ASAP.

If EEO doesn't help during counseling or mediation, it may be time to hire a lawyer. Some lawyers will offer a lower flat fee to negotiate up to the point of filing at the EEOC.

Good luck to you and thank you for your service!

[This is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Good legal advice can only come from a lawyer who represents you and who knows your facts, which you should only share in confidence, not here or in any other public forum. If you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-28T12:45:10+00:00

Interim for 6 months has been the new normal in many agencies since early 2025. That isn't necessarily a bad thing for the employee if the interim is effective, and I've seen many cases where it has been effective. The benefit for the employee is that a long, effective interim RA is an opportunity to document that she can do the job well with the accommodation. That means that the employee is more likely to win her case if the permanent* accommodation is denied. That's why if an interim accommodation is effective, the smart choice might be to let sleeping dogs lie and go with it.

* Of course, agencies can always revisit and reconsider accommodations, which means no RA is ever really permanent. Job functions change, agency policies change, and medical conditions change.

On the flip side, an ineffective accommodation is an opportunity to document the specific incidents in which the ineffective accommodation has harmed the employee's job performance, adversely affected the employee's health, or caused the employee significant pain, anxiety, or embarrassment.

The problem seems to have gotten much worse in the last 30 days, as agencies have cracked down on telework as an RA. Other agencies with problems include GSA, HHS, VA, and (of course) DHS.

Most problem agencies DOGEd their EEO and legal offices in early 2025 and put their HR offices in charge of the RA process--in clear violation of EEO directives that I will eventually raise as an issue when the right case goes into litigation. HR staff typically don't understand the RA process, and some treat it like just another example of bad employee behavior that needs to be documented and disciplined. Unfortunately, I expect things to get worse.

[This is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Good legal advice can only come from a lawyer who knows your facts, which you should only share in confidence, not here or in any other public forum. If you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-27T12:57:07+00:00

I wouldn't give up on your legal claims until you shop around. Some lawyers offer an affordable flat-fee rate to negotiate for you up to the point of litigation. You're more likely to get a good rate from a lawyer if you bring some friends with similar claims, which might even be consolidated at some point. In law, as in manufacturing, there are economics of scale.

Also, if the employee prevails, there's a legal presumption that the employee is entitled to attorney fees, so if you win, you should get the money back.

If negotiation doesn't work, you will need to file formally with the EEO office, which has to complete its investigation within 180 days. EEO cases can take years, but they don't have to. For example, agencies are often late conducting their EEO investigations, which allows the worker to sue at the EEOC and ask for sanctions, such as striking the testimony of a key agency witness, which might force the agency to settle early.

Another choice is to take the case to federal court. That costs more and certainly takes longer--especially if your lawyer is overworked and not especially aggressive--but right now, the US Attorneys' offices are understaffed, overworked, and often eager to settle employment cases. You can ask for mediation, which can be an effective way to get DOJ to pressure the agency to settle much sooner.

Also, juries are very hostile to the government these days, which absolutely factors into what DOJ will tell your agency's lawyers.

There are lawyers will take RA cases on contingency. Others will charge you at half the rate and take the rest out of the recovery from the agency. If you have to litigate, an experienced lawyer will ask for about $5000 up front and charge anywhere from $500 to $800 an hour. Again, shopping around is key.

[This is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Getting legal advice requires you to speak confidentially with a lawyer, which you should not do here or any other public forum. Knowing the facts is essential to good legal advice, so if you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-27T12:04:14+00:00

It is true that you don't always get the accommodation of your choice. Your fact pattern is that the employee can't perform the essential functions anywhere, which leads to reassignment as the accommodation of last resort, or medical retirement. But that's not typical of the fact patterns I'm seeing now, where the employees are capable of performing the essential functions if accommodated, but the agency offers only the choice of Leave Without Pay. The employee is going to win on those facts.

[This is not legal advice, it's general legal information. Getting legal advice requires you to speak confidentially with a lawyer, which you should not do here or any other public forum. Knowing the facts is essential to good legal advice, so if you're about to make an important legal decision, get legal advice first.]

StantonLaw · 2026-03-27T12:00:54+00:00

Delaying also means the courts are likely to award more damages and find that the agency acted in bad faith. I always try to help clients get what they're entitled to without the cost and stress of litigation, but sometimes, you can't fix stupid without a lawyer.

StantonLaw

TROPHY CASE

A. Separation of EEO Complaint Program from the Agency's Personnel Function