On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum requiring agencies to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person on a full-time basis, with limited exceptions.
Since then, many federal workers with disabilities have struggled when their agencies refuse telework arrangements necessary and required under the Rehabilitation Act (incorporating standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act). Federal workers have found that there is little consistency across or even within agencies in the approval process.
On February 11, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), together with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), issued new FAQs affirming that telework may be required where it enables applicants with disabilities to participate in the application process; or employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their positions or to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees without disabilities.
But the FAQs explain that full-time telework as an accommodation may be replaced with a “reasonable and effective in-office option (or combination of options).” The key question is whether such an in-office option would be effective.
Of some concern, the FAQs discuss that, if an agency “reasonabl[y] believes, and the available evidence supports, that an in-office accommodation will be effective, it is not enough for the employee to simply claim, without sufficient evidence of their own, that an in-office accommodation will be ineffective.” Under those circumstances, the agency may insist that an employee return to the office and try the offered accommodation.
If an agency offers in-office accommodations that are reasonable and effective and the employee fails to report to the office, the agency may mark the employee absent without leave “and proceed with any appropriate discipline as it would for any other AWOL employee.” Whether such agency action is lawful will hinge on whether the alternative accommodations are, in fact, reasonable and effective.
The FAQs also address that the government need not continue all previously granted recurring or full-time telework accommodations. Specifically, as part of the ongoing interactive process, an agency may reevaluate a previously granted telework accommodation. As an example, the FAQs suggest that agencies may find it helpful to reevaluate telework accommodations every year.
Although the FAQs explain that a blanket approach to rescinding or denying full-time telework accommodations is improper, stating, “we strongly caution agencies against revoking previously granted telework without first making an individualized determination in each case,” they leave open-ended what constitutes sufficient information on which to make such an individualized assessment.
The FAQs’ guidance suggests this standard may be applied in ways that violate the Rehabilitation Act. For example, the FAQs explain that, when disability-related symptoms arise in the workplace,
[s]imple observation can be the best approach to telework requests in this vein. If an employee requests telework due to anxiety or similar distress in the workplace, the employer should first observe the employee perform their duties in the workplace. If the employee is able to perform to the employer’s satisfaction, then anxiety is likely not a material barrier to equal employment opportunity. In the run of cases, common anxiety, without more, is unlikely to impose a material barrier.
Moreover, the FAQs state that “[p]ossible symptom mitigation does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to telework as a reasonable accommodation.” Depending on the circumstances, this guidance may be inconsistent with federal case law holding that accommodation requests are not automatically unreasonable merely because the employee is physically capable of performing their job absent accommodation. Specifically, Circuit Courts have rejected employer arguments that, if the employee is physically capable of doing their job—no matter the pain or risk to their health, then they have no obligation to provide them with any accommodation, reasonable or not. Aptly, the Seventh Circuit has held that “[t]he duty of reasonable accommodation is satisfied when the employer does what is necessary to enable the disabled worker to work in reasonable comfort.”
The FAQs also address situational telework when an employee has a periodic flare-up or elevated symptoms related to their disability and explain that an agency may require the employee to use sick leave (or other accrued paid time off or leave without pay) in lieu of situational telework. This new guidance deviates from the EEOC’s case law holding that, although an agency may choose among effective accommodations, “forcing an employee to take leave when another accommodation would permit an employee to continue working is not an effective accommodation.”
It is important to note that the FAQs encourage flexibility in the reasonable accommodation decision making process, allowing front-line supervisors to decide requests that are “straightforward and low impact,” while permitting centralized review for “high impact or other significant accommodations, including telework.”
In sum, although the FAQs reaffirm that telework remains an available reasonable accommodation, this guidance suggests agencies limit its use where they can.
If you are an employee and need legal advice or representation regarding an accommodation request, KCNF may be able to help you. Contact us here for a consultation.