Skip to main content

Rights of Federal Employees with Disabilities, Explained


As part of President Donald Trump’s attempt to remake the federal workforce, several directives have been issued to terminate recently hired employees and gut entire agencies. Many federal workers have also been urged to resign under the premise that they will be paid through September 2025.

The federal workforce includes hundreds of thousands of well-qualified disabled employees who work at all levels of the federal government. Some disabled employees receive accommodations in the workplace, including an elevated desk that a wheelchair can fit under, interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing employees, or screen readers for people who are blind or low vision.

The entire federal workforce is facing unprecedented fear and uncertainty, but disabled workers face additional struggles as executive orders and damaging rhetoric question their right to receive needed accommodations. At the ACLU, we know that directives from the Trump administration do not change the law. It is still illegal to discriminate against a federal employee because of a disability and the federal government is still required to provide reasonable accommodations that do not cause undue hardship.

Play the video

Disabilities rights explained video's sign language interpreter.

ASL Interpretation of Rights of Federal Employees with Disabilities, Explained video

What Are My Rights as a Federal Government Employee with a Disability?

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination based on disability, specifically in hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It also requires that, unless it would be an undue hardship, agencies must provide reasonable accommodations for the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability.

Do the Trump Administration’s Policies and Orders Change the Law on Disability Discrimination or Reasonable Accommodation?

No, the new orders and policies cannot change the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, which a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) acknowledges. OPM states that “agencies should not terminate or prohibit accessibility or disability-related accommodations, assistance, or other programs that are required by [the Rehabilitation Act] or related laws.”

Can Federal Agencies Review or Change My Accommodations?

Reviewing an accommodation is permitted, but a reasonable accommodation should not be changed unless an accommodation is no longer necessary, the original accommodation is no longer effective for the employee, or another reasonable and effective accommodation exists.

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to bring federal workers back into offices for in-person work, if working remotely is needed as a disability accommodation, the employer must still provide it. OPM recognizes this in another memo, writing that federal agencies should require in-person work unless remote work is “due to a disability [or] qualifying medical condition.”

Can I Be Pressured to Return to In-Person Work or Quit? Can I Be Targeted for Layoffs Because of a Disability? Can They Ask for Medical Documentation for an Accommodation?

Being pressured by supervisors or co-workers to quit or return to work in-person despite an approved accommodation may be illegal workplace harassment, retaliation for requesting an accommodation, or illegal interference with your right to seek an accommodation. It would also be illegal disability discrimination to target federal employees for layoffs based on their disabilities or need for accommodations.

Similarly, an employer should only ask for medical documentation if the disability or the need for the accommodation is not known or obvious. Such requests are normally made at the time of the original accommodation request. Further documentation may be requested if the disability is one that changes over time. When the employer has a good reason for seeking more documentation, the employer should only ask for reasonable documentation about the disability and about its functional limitations that require reasonable accommodation. Employers must treat any such health information as a confidential medical record.

What Should I Do if I Think My Federal Employer is Violating My Rights? How Can I Learn More?

If you can’t work it out directly with your employer, employees can file a complaint. There are very short deadlines to complain, and you should assume they cannot be extended.

The first step in the complaint process is to make and document an informal complaint with your agency’s Equal Opportunity Employment officer. This must be done within 45 days of the date of the failure to accommodate or other discrimination. But there are also deadlines for each step after that. The full complaint process is summarized in the Overview of Federal Sector EEO Complaint Process on the EEOC website.

It is illegal to retaliate against an employee for making a complaint of discrimination, including a complaint about the failure to accommodate. You should file a separate complaint about any retaliation. There is more information about your rights on the EEOC website. You might start by looking at the EEOC Disability-Related Resources. If you are worried that the information there may have recently changed or may no longer be accurate, you may want to consult a lawyer.

Disabled people belong in the federal workforce and in every part of the political, civic, and economic life of our communities. Donald Trump can’t undo that by fiat – and he hasn’t.

This blog includes excerpts from a frequently asked questions resource prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. The full resource, including a list of lawyers who can help answer questions on disability discrimination, can be found here in English and here in American Sign Language.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...