CDC employees losing RA telework

[Anonymous]

What do you all think of this latest development? CDC employees with a disability will no longer have the option of telework as a reasonable accommodation.

Do you think it would get rolled out elsewhere? I do feel like any requests for RA telework were quickly granted, so this would be a major change.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/09/cdc-ends-telework-employees-disabilities-union-says/408188/

[Anonymous]

The far better question is whether channeling requires these employees to pursue their claims administratively or whether they can sue their agencies in court. If the latter I think agencies are going to be end up paying out a lot of claims. Imagine having roles that were previously remote or included some level of TW and now saying that TW presents an undue burden on the employer. Particularly when OPM said within the past few months that TW is a low cost and effective options for religious RAs.

[Anonymous]

I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

[Anonymous]

Well the ADA was on Project 2025's chopping block, so this tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

The same physical disabilities can affect people differently. These people have have felt it was important to get face time, prove that their disability would not affect them, or otherwise leave the house to get over the hump of traveling to work. For others, there may not be the motivation to deal with the additional burdens the disability creates related to travel.

[Anonymous]

The agency should prove why people need to work in person rather than force people to prove why they can’t work in person, considering that the ban on telework is illegally breaking union contracts for many workers.

This CDC policy is in response to a new HHS telework policy which is unclear regarding RA, but CDC leadership just wanted to take initiative on it.

[Anonymous]

This just means a lot of people are going to leave CDC when they can find remote work elsewhere.

Now FDA needs to hire 1000 critical scientific staff because they've had so many feds resign / retire for other jobs. Guess they want that to happen at the CDC too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

PP here and the standard is "substantially limited in performing a major life activity." That does not mean completely prevented from performing a major life activity by the way which is what you seem to be suggesting. There is a statute and agencies should be following the law as set forth under the Rehabilitation Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

PP here and the standard is "substantially limited in performing a major life activity." That does not mean completely prevented from performing a major life activity by the way which is what you seem to be suggesting. There is a statute and agencies should be following the law as set forth under the Rehabilitation Act.

PP here. Maybe I wrote this wrong. I'm very pro telework. I'm just trying to figure out what the administration will choose.

[Anonymous]

The actual HHS telework policy doesn’t mention RA at all (under reasons for telework) but it is mostly addressing situational telework. RA should have a separate policy. Seems like CDC is way out of line unless there is further guidance.

[Anonymous]

Is that even legal or did they go in and unilaterally change the Americans with Disabilities Act?