Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a circuit split on the issue of whether employers need to accommodate commutes under the ADA. Weird that PP who keeps citing 15-year-old cases neglected to mention this.

https://www.icemiller.com/thought-leadership/accommodating-a-commute-to-work-a-supreme-question

https://www.laboremploymentreport.com/2024/04/03/are-reasonable-accommodations-required-for-an-employees-commute/

It also appears there is separate case law specifically regarding federal employees that supports employers’ being required to accommodate in these situations.

https://feltg.com/ask-feltg-tackles-accommodation-request-for-inability-to-commute/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c99028e4b02a3a05287dbc/t/5910b1fa5016e199a8bc3f02/1494266363778/Accommodating+Commuting+Restrictions+for+Federal+Government+Employees.pdf

That’s what happens when you use AI for legal research!

And I am not going to pretend to be up to date on the case law, but I do think that the low/no burden of telework on the employer due to technological advances requires a new approach to telework requests as accommodations. I suppose the government could try to make up reasons that telework is an inherent burden - but given the religious accommodation telework memo that expressly says that telework is a low/no burden accommodation, I don’t see how they can say that.

The religious accommodation memo provides for situational telework not the full time telework arrangement that people want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Why would you twist yourself into pretzels to defend making this person come in to the office. Ghoul.

Exactly. Only a beast would twist themselves into a pretzel to make someone literally sick but still effective come into the office, especially just to jump on Teams calls all day. 🙄

Sorry but they weren’t just as effective at home as they were at work. Maybe some were but not most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day we have a lot of Feds that could work in the office 6 years ago that are now disabled. So either something has made the population significantly worse off or people are gaming the system.

If it’s the former we really should look into what is crippling our federal workforce. If it’s the latter, then the workforce is making a really risky gamble given the environment.

Most people that were telework eligible were NOT working FT in the office even 6 years ago. Many were on hybrid schedules and some were fully remote. There is a possible difference in health effects of commuting 5 days per week compared to 2 days per week. And besides those, there are others that started a remote job within the past 5 years, and never asked for a RA before because it was not necessary.

What health effects? Most Americans work in person full time. If doctors, nurses, retail workers, janitors, etc. can work in person full time, so can you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day we have a lot of Feds that could work in the office 6 years ago that are now disabled. So either something has made the population significantly worse off or people are gaming the system.

If it’s the former we really should look into what is crippling our federal workforce. If it’s the latter, then the workforce is making a really risky gamble given the environment.

Most people that were telework eligible were NOT working FT in the office even 6 years ago. Many were on hybrid schedules and some were fully remote. There is a possible difference in health effects of commuting 5 days per week compared to 2 days per week. And besides those, there are others that started a remote job within the past 5 years, and never asked for a RA before because it was not necessary.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day we have a lot of Feds that could work in the office 6 years ago that are now disabled. So either something has made the population significantly worse off or people are gaming the system.

If it’s the former we really should look into what is crippling our federal workforce. If it’s the latter, then the workforce is making a really risky gamble given the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day we have a lot of Feds that could work in the office 6 years ago that are now disabled. So either something has made the population significantly worse off or people are gaming the system.

If it’s the former we really should look into what is crippling our federal workforce. If it’s the latter, then the workforce is making a really risky gamble given the environment.

Perhaps it speaks to the quality of the employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a circuit split on the issue of whether employers need to accommodate commutes under the ADA. Weird that PP who keeps citing 15-year-old cases neglected to mention this.

https://www.icemiller.com/thought-leadership/accommodating-a-commute-to-work-a-supreme-question

https://www.laboremploymentreport.com/2024/04/03/are-reasonable-accommodations-required-for-an-employees-commute/

It also appears there is separate case law specifically regarding federal employees that supports employers’ being required to accommodate in these situations.

https://feltg.com/ask-feltg-tackles-accommodation-request-for-inability-to-commute/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c99028e4b02a3a05287dbc/t/5910b1fa5016e199a8bc3f02/1494266363778/Accommodating+Commuting+Restrictions+for+Federal+Government+Employees.pdf

That’s what happens when you use AI for legal research!

And I am not going to pretend to be up to date on the case law, but I do think that the low/no burden of telework on the employer due to technological advances requires a new approach to telework requests as accommodations. I suppose the government could try to make up reasons that telework is an inherent burden - but given the religious accommodation telework memo that expressly says that telework is a low/no burden accommodation, I don’t see how they can say that.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day we have a lot of Feds that could work in the office 6 years ago that are now disabled. So either something has made the population significantly worse off or people are gaming the system.

If it’s the former we really should look into what is crippling our federal workforce. If it’s the latter, then the workforce is making a really risky gamble given the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Why would you twist yourself into pretzels to defend making this person come in to the office. Ghoul.

Exactly. Only a beast would twist themselves into a pretzel to make someone literally sick but still effective come into the office, especially just to jump on Teams calls all day. 🙄

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a circuit split on the issue of whether employers need to accommodate commutes under the ADA. Weird that PP who keeps citing 15-year-old cases neglected to mention this.

https://www.icemiller.com/thought-leadership/accommodating-a-commute-to-work-a-supreme-question

https://www.laboremploymentreport.com/2024/04/03/are-reasonable-accommodations-required-for-an-employees-commute/

It also appears there is separate case law specifically regarding federal employees that supports employers’ being required to accommodate in these situations.

https://feltg.com/ask-feltg-tackles-accommodation-request-for-inability-to-commute/

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c99028e4b02a3a05287dbc/t/5910b1fa5016e199a8bc3f02/1494266363778/Accommodating+Commuting+Restrictions+for+Federal+Government+Employees.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012)
Scenario: Employee with narcolepsy had difficulty driving in heavy traffic and asked to avoid a new shift schedule.
Ruling: The ADA does not require employers to accommodate commuting problems outside the workplace. The employer was not required to adjust the shift just to make the drive easier.

Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan, Inc. (10th Cir. 2021)
Scenario: Legally blind employee with a 60-mile commute asked to work only when she could secure a ride. She proposed telework on these days as an alternative accommodation, as some job functions could be performed remotely.
Ruling: The request was not reasonable. The ADA does not require an employer to accommodate unpredictable attendance stemming from transportation barriers. The employer was also not required to allow partial telework, as the employee did not show she could perform all essential job functions remotely.

Schneider v. Giant of Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2009)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty using public transportation and requested schedule changes.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide a different shift solely to ease commuting.

Salmon v. Dade County School Board (11th Cir. 1993)
Scenario: Teacher with vision impairment wanted transfer to a school closer to home.
Ruling: Employer was not obligated to accommodate by shortening the commute.

Lyons v. Legal Aid Society (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
Scenario: Attorney with a back injury requested reassignment closer to home to shorten subway commute.
Ruling: Employer not required to accommodate commute difficulties unrelated to the essential functions of the job.

Kimble v. Potter (10th Cir. 2009)
Scenario: Postal Service employee with lupus requested a transfer to a facility closer to her home to reduce her commute, which had become difficult due to her condition.
Ruling: The ADA does not obligate employers to accommodate commuting difficulties. A transfer intended solely to shorten the commute was not a reasonable accommodation, since it did not relate to the performance of essential job functions.

Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances.

Carr v. Reno (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Scenario: Employee with multiple sclerosis requested transfer to a closer office to reduce her commute.
Ruling: Employer was not required to transfer her solely to shorten the commute; commuting is not the employer’s responsibility under the Rehabilitation Act.

Gonzagowski v. Widnall (10th Cir. 1996)
Scenario: Civilian Air Force employee with a disability requested transfer to a base closer to home to ease commuting.
Ruling: The court held that commuting is not a job function and the ADA does not require employers to shorten or otherwise accommodate an employee’s commute.

Campbell v. Federal Express Corp. (6th Cir. 1998)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty driving to work during certain hours and requested schedule adjustments to avoid the commute at those times.
Ruling: Employer was not required to alter shifts solely to accommodate transportation problems outside the workplace.

Robinson v. Bodman (D.D.C. 2007)
Scenario: DOE employee with a medical condition sought a transfer to a closer office to reduce travel time.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide an accommodation related only to commuting; the ADA/Rehabilitation Act obligates accommodation of essential job functions, not travel.

Did you use AI to generate this list? I just tried to pull up Carr v. Reno. I can't find a 1995 DC Circuit decision. I did find a 1994 DC Circuit decision (23 F.3d 525). In that decision, Carr, a DOJ employee with Meniere's disease, was fired because she was unable to work a consistent 8 hour day and meet a daily 4 pm deadline. The DC Circuit upheld that ruling.

Here's a paragraph from that decision:

"We are reminded that section 501 demands a great deal from federal employers in the way of accommodation. Indeed, in appropriate cases, that section requires an agency to consider work at home, as well as reassignment in another position, as potential forms of accommodation. See Langon v. HHS, 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding that an agency must consider accommodating a computer programmer with multiple sclerosis by allowing her to work at home). But under the facts of this case the U.S. Attorney's Office properly rejected these options. Ms. Carr concedes that she could not work as a Coding Clerk at home, as the job involves tight 4:00 p.m. deadlines. "

And, for

"Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances."

Tyndall did have Lupus, which caused her to miss many days at work due to her illness. She missed more work due to taking care of her son. She was terminated for missing too many days at work, and the 4th Circuit upheld that termination. She was a great worker, but working on a regular basis was an essential aspect of her job as an instructor.

I don't see where she asked for full time WFH as a reasonable accomodation. However, the court does state the following:

"Except in the unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties at home, an employee "who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise." Wimbley v. Bolger, 642 F. Supp. 481, 485 (W.D.Tenn. 1986), aff'd, 831 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1987). Therefore, a regular and reliable level of attendance is a necessary element of most jobs." (emphasis added).

Seems pretty clear that the 4th circuit was being very careful to NOT let someone infer from this ruling that coming into the office was a necessary element of the job if the employee could effectively perform all work-related duties at home.

You really shouldn't cite cases without reading them.

To be perfectly clear - neither of these two cases was someone in a role that could be performed completely remotely asking to WFH due to a medical condition making a commute difficult, having that request denied, and appealing it.

Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012) summarizes that issue in this paragraph:

"Though this Circuit has not yet decided this precise issue, many courts have found that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s commute. Robinson v. Bodman, 333 Fed.Appx. 205, 208 (9th Cir.2009) (“The [employer] was not required to accommodate [the plaintiffs] inability to drive to work or use public transportation. Although an employer is required to make reasonable accommodations to eliminate barriers for a disabled employee in the workplace, the employer is not required to eliminate barriers outside the workplace that make it more difficult for the employee to get to and from work....”); LaResca v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph, 161 F.Supp.2d 323, 333 (D.N.J.2001) (“[T]he change to day shift sought by Plaintiff is not an ‘accommodation,’ that it is legally obligated to provide, but is simply a request for an easier, more convenient commute.”); Salmon v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1163 (S.D.Fla.1998) (rejecting plaintiffs claims that employer “failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a school which afforded her a shorter commute [because] plaintiffs commute to and from work is an activity that is unrelated to and outside of her job”); Schneider v. Confl Cas. Co., No. 95 C 1820, 1996 WL 944721, at 9 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 16, 1996) (finding employer is not required to eliminate an employee’s commute to accommodate the employee’s back injury); see also Chandler v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 850 F.Supp. 728, 736 (N.D.Ill. 1994) (employee’s inability to undertake a long commute because of back injury was not a disability for purposes of the employer’s benefit plan but instead a limitation within the employee’s control). “While an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations that eliminate barriers in the work environment, an employer is not required to eliminate those barriers which exist outside the work environment.” Salmon, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1163."

At our union conference the NTEU people said the Rehab Act (which is what covers feds, not the ADA cited in the case above) does require consideration of commute and is different in that regard from the ADA. I didn't research it but I assume they know this stuff since they do it every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012)
Scenario: Employee with narcolepsy had difficulty driving in heavy traffic and asked to avoid a new shift schedule.
Ruling: The ADA does not require employers to accommodate commuting problems outside the workplace. The employer was not required to adjust the shift just to make the drive easier.

Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan, Inc. (10th Cir. 2021)
Scenario: Legally blind employee with a 60-mile commute asked to work only when she could secure a ride. She proposed telework on these days as an alternative accommodation, as some job functions could be performed remotely.
Ruling: The request was not reasonable. The ADA does not require an employer to accommodate unpredictable attendance stemming from transportation barriers. The employer was also not required to allow partial telework, as the employee did not show she could perform all essential job functions remotely.

Schneider v. Giant of Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2009)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty using public transportation and requested schedule changes.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide a different shift solely to ease commuting.

Salmon v. Dade County School Board (11th Cir. 1993)
Scenario: Teacher with vision impairment wanted transfer to a school closer to home.
Ruling: Employer was not obligated to accommodate by shortening the commute.

Lyons v. Legal Aid Society (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
Scenario: Attorney with a back injury requested reassignment closer to home to shorten subway commute.
Ruling: Employer not required to accommodate commute difficulties unrelated to the essential functions of the job.

Kimble v. Potter (10th Cir. 2009)
Scenario: Postal Service employee with lupus requested a transfer to a facility closer to her home to reduce her commute, which had become difficult due to her condition.
Ruling: The ADA does not obligate employers to accommodate commuting difficulties. A transfer intended solely to shorten the commute was not a reasonable accommodation, since it did not relate to the performance of essential job functions.

Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances.

Carr v. Reno (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Scenario: Employee with multiple sclerosis requested transfer to a closer office to reduce her commute.
Ruling: Employer was not required to transfer her solely to shorten the commute; commuting is not the employer’s responsibility under the Rehabilitation Act.

Gonzagowski v. Widnall (10th Cir. 1996)
Scenario: Civilian Air Force employee with a disability requested transfer to a base closer to home to ease commuting.
Ruling: The court held that commuting is not a job function and the ADA does not require employers to shorten or otherwise accommodate an employee’s commute.

Campbell v. Federal Express Corp. (6th Cir. 1998)
Scenario: Employee with epilepsy had difficulty driving to work during certain hours and requested schedule adjustments to avoid the commute at those times.
Ruling: Employer was not required to alter shifts solely to accommodate transportation problems outside the workplace.

Robinson v. Bodman (D.D.C. 2007)
Scenario: DOE employee with a medical condition sought a transfer to a closer office to reduce travel time.
Ruling: The employer was not required to provide an accommodation related only to commuting; the ADA/Rehabilitation Act obligates accommodation of essential job functions, not travel.

Did you use AI to generate this list? I just tried to pull up Carr v. Reno. I can't find a 1995 DC Circuit decision. I did find a 1994 DC Circuit decision (23 F.3d 525). In that decision, Carr, a DOJ employee with Meniere's disease, was fired because she was unable to work a consistent 8 hour day and meet a daily 4 pm deadline. The DC Circuit upheld that ruling.

Here's a paragraph from that decision:

"We are reminded that section 501 demands a great deal from federal employers in the way of accommodation. Indeed, in appropriate cases, that section requires an agency to consider work at home, as well as reassignment in another position, as potential forms of accommodation. See Langon v. HHS, 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding that an agency must consider accommodating a computer programmer with multiple sclerosis by allowing her to work at home). But under the facts of this case the U.S. Attorney's Office properly rejected these options. Ms. Carr concedes that she could not work as a Coding Clerk at home, as the job involves tight 4:00 p.m. deadlines. "

And, for

"Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. (4th Cir. 1994)
Scenario: Instructor with lupus frequently missed work because her condition and childcare needs made it hard to get to campus.
Ruling: Regular, reliable attendance was essential, and the employer was not obligated to accommodate difficulties that arose from commuting or personal circumstances."

Tyndall did have Lupus, which caused her to miss many days at work due to her illness. She missed more work due to taking care of her son. She was terminated for missing too many days at work, and the 4th Circuit upheld that termination. She was a great worker, but working on a regular basis was an essential aspect of her job as an instructor.

I don't see where she asked for full time WFH as a reasonable accomodation. However, the court does state the following:

"Except in the unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties at home, an employee "who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise." Wimbley v. Bolger, 642 F. Supp. 481, 485 (W.D.Tenn. 1986), aff'd, 831 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1987). Therefore, a regular and reliable level of attendance is a necessary element of most jobs." (emphasis added).

Seems pretty clear that the 4th circuit was being very careful to NOT let someone infer from this ruling that coming into the office was a necessary element of the job if the employee could effectively perform all work-related duties at home.

You really shouldn't cite cases without reading them.

To be perfectly clear - neither of these two cases was someone in a role that could be performed completely remotely asking to WFH due to a medical condition making a commute difficult, having that request denied, and appealing it.

Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc. (6th Cir. 2012) summarizes that issue in this paragraph:

"Though this Circuit has not yet decided this precise issue, many courts have found that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s commute. Robinson v. Bodman, 333 Fed.Appx. 205, 208 (9th Cir.2009) (“The [employer] was not required to accommodate [the plaintiffs] inability to drive to work or use public transportation. Although an employer is required to make reasonable accommodations to eliminate barriers for a disabled employee in the workplace, the employer is not required to eliminate barriers outside the workplace that make it more difficult for the employee to get to and from work....”); LaResca v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph, 161 F.Supp.2d 323, 333 (D.N.J.2001) (“[T]he change to day shift sought by Plaintiff is not an ‘accommodation,’ that it is legally obligated to provide, but is simply a request for an easier, more convenient commute.”); Salmon v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1163 (S.D.Fla.1998) (rejecting plaintiffs claims that employer “failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a school which afforded her a shorter commute [because] plaintiffs commute to and from work is an activity that is unrelated to and outside of her job”); Schneider v. Confl Cas. Co., No. 95 C 1820, 1996 WL 944721, at 9 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 16, 1996) (finding employer is not required to eliminate an employee’s commute to accommodate the employee’s back injury); see also Chandler v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 850 F.Supp. 728, 736 (N.D.Ill. 1994) (employee’s inability to undertake a long commute because of back injury was not a disability for purposes of the employer’s benefit plan but instead a limitation within the employee’s control). “While an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations that eliminate barriers in the work environment, an employer is not required to eliminate those barriers which exist outside the work environment.” Salmon, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1163."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t those people just file for disability retirement if they aren’t able to perform their duties (requiring being in the office) and get their 60/40% pay until retirement while they go find another job?

I broke my foot and was on crutches while 7 months pregnant. I needed RA for 6 weeks because it was too hard to get to the office. I don’t have separate disability insurance (and fed government doesn’t provide it) and I wasn’t ready to retire at the time (a decade ago). My agency also would have lost my expertise. People able to perform their jobs from home, but unable to commute for a medical reason, abound have options. It’s short sighted to take them away.

This is a situation where a worker should absolutely have RA. What kind of beast would deny a pregnant woman with a broken foot who CAN work from home the opportunity to do so?

The culture of this administration is supposedly pro-family/pro-pregnancy (I stop short of using pro-life to describe these particular people) but I could see them (Vought, for example) denying an injured pregnant woman RA just to put her in her place for daring to having a job.