Imagine being told that your workplace, which once accommodated your medical needs, is now forcing you back into the office despite serious health risks. This is the harsh reality for many employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy tightens the reins on telework accommodations for workers with disabilities. But here's where it gets even more complicated: the CDC is reportedly asking employees to sidestep the standard process, creating a workaround that raises serious ethical and legal questions. And this is the part most people miss—the potential long-term consequences for both employees and the agency itself.
The HHS policy now mandates that all requests for telework, remote work, or reassignment must be reviewed and approved by an assistant secretary or higher-ranking official. This bureaucratic hurdle is likely to slow down an already sluggish approval process, leaving employees in limbo. As Federal News Network reported last week, the policy generally prohibits employees from using telework as an ‘interim accommodation’ while their formal requests are being processed. However, with a staggering backlog of over 3,000 reasonable accommodation cases, the CDC has resorted to an ad-hoc approach, granting temporary medical telework on a case-by-case basis.
Here’s where it gets controversial: according to four CDC employees, supervisors are instructing staff to email their medical documentation directly to Lynda Chapman, the agency’s chief operating officer. This bypasses the traditional reasonable accommodation system, allowing employees to receive up to 30 days of telework as an interim measure. ‘The instructions are for you to email her a letter from your doctor, and she will be the judge of if you can telework for up to 30 days,’ one CDC employee told Federal News Network. Is it appropriate for a non-medical professional to evaluate health needs? Many argue this responsibility should lie with a reasonable accommodation (RA) specialist, not an executive.
A second CDC employee shared evidence with Federal News Network showing Chapman was recently added as an authorized official to review their accommodation materials. ‘I think this is very problematic, because she really should not be evaluating people’s health needs,’ the employee said. ‘It should be an RA specialist.’ Additionally, two employees revealed that Chapman is only approving interim telework in limited circumstances, such as post-surgery recovery, pregnancy, or chemotherapy. This raises the question: Who gets to decide which medical conditions qualify for accommodations, and on what basis?
This week, the CDC held a series of ‘office hours’ sessions with supervisors, during which the Office of Human Resources provided further details about the new process. However, these sessions only added to the confusion. ‘I was requested to share my medical information via personal email to Lynda Chapman,’ one employee wrote during a Q&A session. ‘When I questioned her role prior to sending my file, she denied my request.’ Is this a violation of privacy or a necessary step in expediting accommodations?
Linnet Griffiths, a former senior advisor to the CDC’s chief operating officer, shed light on the agency’s previous system. ‘They had a robust system for processing reasonable accommodations,’ Griffiths said, but noted that many employees handling these cases were targeted by reductions in force. ‘They have gotten rid of all the RA staff and EEO offices, which is extremely disturbing,’ she added. Could this staffing shortage be the root of the current crisis? Griffiths emphasized that human resources employees received specialized training to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. ‘We had in-house doctors trained to review medical information and determine eligibility for full-time telework,’ she explained. ‘The chief operating officer or someone without medical expertise reviewing that information was something we would never do.’*
During the ‘office hours’ meetings, supervisors were informed that under the new HHS policy, they cannot approve interim telework requests, even in cases where telework is the only viable accommodation. Expiring telework agreements will not be renewed, leaving employees with two options: return to the office or use leave. Is this a denial in disguise? Supervisors were instructed to tell employees that telework could not be granted, though several noted this functions like a denial in practice. Leadership acknowledged the legal risks associated with forcing employees to take leave, yet offered little guidance on how to navigate these challenges. When supervisors raised concerns about conflicting with federal disability law, they were told to stop discussing legal issues during the session and to raise such concerns offline. Are employees being left to fend for themselves in a legally murky situation?
Several Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), have criticized the policy, stating it ‘will inflict outsized harm on workers with disabilities.’ They highlighted specific cases, such as an HHS employee whose telework accommodation due to a high-risk pregnancy was rescinded, resulting in an emergency room visit. Another case involved a disabled veteran whose PTSD was exacerbated by a shooting at CDC headquarters, yet their telework request was denied multiple times. Is this policy failing the very people it’s meant to protect?
HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard responded that the department remains committed to processing requests quickly and will address the senators’ concerns directly. However, the question remains: Can a policy that prioritizes bureaucracy over compassion ever truly serve its employees?
What do you think? Is the CDC’s workaround a necessary evil in the face of overwhelming backlogs, or does it undermine the rights of employees with disabilities? Let us know in the comments below.
