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:

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.

How exactly does sitting in traffic or on a crowded train (catching the flu) an hour each way just to jump on Teams calls effective? What is your definition of effective?

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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

In what world does the employer purposefully provide an accommodation that’s MORE burdensome to the employer? That’s not how it works.

There are other factors at play such as policy directives from the White House. The goal is to get butts in seats at the office, not make things less burdensome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

In what world does the employer purposefully provide an accommodation that’s MORE burdensome to the employer? That’s not how it works.

You haven't been paying attention to the last 8 months if you don't think that's how it works.

I mean for the last 8 months the government has been trying to make working conditions so miserable in order to coerce employees into leaving. This conversation is (rightly or wrongly) assuming an eventual return to sanity and best practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

In what world does the employer purposefully provide an accommodation that’s MORE burdensome to the employer? That’s not how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

In what world does the employer purposefully provide an accommodation that’s MORE burdensome to the employer? That’s not how it works.

You haven't been paying attention to the last 8 months if you don't think that's how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

In what world does the employer purposefully provide an accommodation that’s MORE burdensome to the employer? That’s not how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Agencies don't have to provide the lowest cost accommodation. They can choose a more expensive one that is still effective.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Show us the data that proves this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also says telework is a low/no burden accommodation for the employer.

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.