A concerning shift is underway at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The agency is navigating a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy that tightens restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. This policy change has sparked controversy and raised serious questions about the agency's commitment to supporting its staff.
The core of the issue lies in HHS's new rules. The policy mandates that all requests for telework, remote work, or reassignment must be reviewed and approved by high-level officials, such as an assistant secretary or someone even higher up the chain. This is likely to create significant delays in the approval process.
But here's where it gets controversial... Faced with a backlog of over 3,000 reasonable accommodation cases, the CDC appears to be taking an unconventional approach. According to reports, supervisors are instructing employees to bypass the standard process. They're asking staff to send their medical documentation directly to Lynda Chapman, the agency's chief operating officer, to potentially receive up to 30 days of temporary telework.
One CDC employee shared, "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." Another employee revealed that Chapman was recently authorized to review reasonable accommodation materials, sparking concerns. "I think this is very problematic, because she really should not be evaluating people’s health needs,” the employee stated. “It should be an RA specialist.”
It's important to note that Chapman seems to be approving interim telework only in specific situations, such as recovery from surgery, pregnancy, or chemotherapy.
To make matters more complex, the CDC recently held 'office hours' sessions for supervisors to provide more information about the new reasonable accommodation process. One employee shared that when they questioned Chapman's role, their request was denied.
Linnet Griffiths, a former senior advisor to CDC’s chief operating officer, noted that the agency previously had a 'robust system' for processing reasonable accommodations. However, she claims that many employees involved in this process were affected by workforce reductions. Griffiths added, "They have gotten rid of all the RA staff and EEO offices, which is extremely disturbing, because the department already had a lot of RA cases, a backlog that was unbelievable. They were understaffed.”
Griffiths explained that the agency previously had in-house doctors who were trained to review medical information and approve full-time telework. "The [CDC] chief operating officer or someone that does not have medical expertise reviewing that information was something we would never do,” she said.
In a concerning development, agency leadership told supervisors that they cannot approve interim telework requests, even when telework has been identified as the only effective accommodation. Supervisors were told that expiring telework agreements would not be renewed, forcing employees to return to the office or use leave. This was despite the fact that supervisors acknowledged that this functioned as a denial in practice.
And this is the part most people miss... During these sessions, supervisors raised concerns that the agency's guidance conflicts with federal disability law. Leadership then directed supervisors to stop discussing legal issues and advised them to seek professional liability insurance. This left many supervisors worried about how to provide interim accommodations lawfully and avoid harming employees.
While a CDC spokesperson stated that interim accommodations, including telework, “may be provided while cases move through the reasonable-accommodation process,” the situation remains complex.
Several Senate Democrats, including Sens. Tim Kaine and Raphael Warnock, have expressed concern that the new HHS policy “will inflict outsized harm on workers with disabilities.” They cited examples of employees whose telework accommodations were rescinded, leading to negative health consequences.
What do you think? Do you believe the CDC's approach is a necessary workaround, or does it raise serious ethical and legal concerns? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Is the new HHS policy a step forward or backward for employees with disabilities? Let's discuss!
