Feds Only Reasonable Accomodations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP sorry but that’s BS. The majority of federal workers shouldn’t have to move their families to rent controlled apartments in high crime areas of DC. What you’re proposing isn’t just unrealistic, but is dumb when we have the technology to telework seamlessly. This isn’t the 1930s anymore. Progress happens. It’s a thing. If we can replace people with AI and machine learning then we can allow people who have disabilities to telework.

Anything that can be done remotely can pretty much be automated. I am not talking high crime areas. Even Foggy Bottom, Adams Morgan, Dupoint Circle, Friendship heights all have rentals built 1975 or older.

I learn at 10X when in person compared to Remote people. But seriously it is the little things you can only do in person that matter. Staff going through a divorce, death of Mom, pending layoffs, birth of a child, mentoring, gossip. On the Job training. Those little things cant do remote. And those little things add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

Urogynecologist surgical staffer here. Unless you live in Palm Springs and are commuting to Vegas across the desert, there will be a bathroom along the commute. It’s fine to stop along the way.

Alternatives include Depends/Thinx and / or wicking pads.

Cmon. You’re already wearing the absorbent pads and briefs in your home office, admit this. Just change when you arrive at work. Bring a disposable wipe.

My employer would never agree to sign a letter with her name and NPI stating someone with your diagnosis can’t drive.

Genuine question - for many feds there is no parking option, so my commute via transit is one hour door to door. What about fecal incontinence? Also changing diaper etc is very embarrassing and time consuming in a public restroom.

People seem to be unaware that affirming dignity is part of the ADA. Requiring a commute when work can be performed equally from a home office creates unnecessary hurdles for someone with a disability.

While affirming dignity under the ADA may have been true in previous/normal times, the new administration wants everyone and anyone out at any cost. Even better to boot you if you have a disability because that makes you DEI. They are not following the legally required ADA process or “interactive process.” Their approach is to reject and make you appeal and then hire an attorney at your own expense to sue. They are not following disability law. They are not doing the right or moral thing. I don’t know anyone who has had a reasonable accommodation request granted. They have all been rejected or granted without true accommodation. For example, an employee who has been teleworking full time for years for medical reasons is now being “accommodated” by full time in office but with permission to telework on days they have a medical appointment. That isn’t an accommodation when it’s agency policy.

Yes, this is what’s happening. And it’s b.s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

Urogynecologist surgical staffer here. Unless you live in Palm Springs and are commuting to Vegas across the desert, there will be a bathroom along the commute. It’s fine to stop along the way.

Alternatives include Depends/Thinx and / or wicking pads.

Cmon. You’re already wearing the absorbent pads and briefs in your home office, admit this. Just change when you arrive at work. Bring a disposable wipe.

My employer would never agree to sign a letter with her name and NPI stating someone with your diagnosis can’t drive.

Genuine question - for many feds there is no parking option, so my commute via transit is one hour door to door. What about fecal incontinence? Also changing diaper etc is very embarrassing and time consuming in a public restroom.

People seem to be unaware that affirming dignity is part of the ADA. Requiring a commute when work can be performed equally from a home office creates unnecessary hurdles for someone with a disability.

While affirming dignity under the ADA may have been true in previous/normal times, the new administration wants everyone and anyone out at any cost. Even better to boot you if you have a disability because that makes you DEI. They are not following the legally required ADA process or “interactive process.” Their approach is to reject and make you appeal and then hire an attorney at your own expense to sue. They are not following disability law. They are not doing the right or moral thing. I don’t know anyone who has had a reasonable accommodation request granted. They have all been rejected or granted without true accommodation. For example, an employee who has been teleworking full time for years for medical reasons is now being “accommodated” by full time in office but with permission to telework on days they have a medical appointment. That isn’t an accommodation when it’s agency policy.

Yes, this is what’s happening. And it’s b.s.

The problem is too many feds abuse RA. Feel bad for people who do need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My RA was rejected and I’ve had it in place for a few years now. My disability status hasn’t changed and the accommodation requested was the same (telework). I got additional documentation from a health care provider and my agency still rejected it. I have no idea what to do but the proper ADA process isn’t being followed. Is this the norm across agencies? Also, all letters and emails are being signed anonymously, so I don’t know who is reviewing my medical records or who to talk to. There’s no negotiating and no required process. I have been reporting in and my issue is being significantly exacerbated. I seriously want to end it all. I can’t afford an attorney and am a single mom, so this is just horrible.

If they aren’t truly refusing to engage in the interactive process, they are handing you a successful lawsuit and you can probably find someone who will work on contingency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

Urogynecologist surgical staffer here. Unless you live in Palm Springs and are commuting to Vegas across the desert, there will be a bathroom along the commute. It’s fine to stop along the way.

Alternatives include Depends/Thinx and / or wicking pads.

Cmon. You’re already wearing the absorbent pads and briefs in your home office, admit this. Just change when you arrive at work. Bring a disposable wipe.

My employer would never agree to sign a letter with her name and NPI stating someone with your diagnosis can’t drive.

Genuine question - for many feds there is no parking option, so my commute via transit is one hour door to door. What about fecal incontinence? Also changing diaper etc is very embarrassing and time consuming in a public restroom.

People seem to be unaware that affirming dignity is part of the ADA. Requiring a commute when work can be performed equally from a home office creates unnecessary hurdles for someone with a disability.

While affirming dignity under the ADA may have been true in previous/normal times, the new administration wants everyone and anyone out at any cost. Even better to boot you if you have a disability because that makes you DEI. They are not following the legally required ADA process or “interactive process.” Their approach is to reject and make you appeal and then hire an attorney at your own expense to sue. They are not following disability law. They are not doing the right or moral thing. I don’t know anyone who has had a reasonable accommodation request granted. They have all been rejected or granted without true accommodation. For example, an employee who has been teleworking full time for years for medical reasons is now being “accommodated” by full time in office but with permission to telework on days they have a medical appointment. That isn’t an accommodation when it’s agency policy.

“Affirming dignity” doesn’t mean that in office isn’t ok as the PP you responded to suggested, and lots of RA requests right now are being rejected because they are BS and a desperate attempt to avoid coming in.

It’s also true that agencies are taking a harder line, but that’s not necessarily improper. RA issues are not cut and dry and there can be reasonable to differences between the employer and the employer as to if an accommodation is required and, even more so, what accommodation is required. Employers, especially government, often just agree to avoid the fight/hassle. That’s not the case now where agencies are more willing to take a harder line, and even assume some litigation risk.

I’m not saying there might not be some instances where agencies are rejecting facially valid claims or are refusing to engage in the interactive process at all, but just because RA requests are being denied, doesn’t mean that is the case.