No, One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Cut It”: What HHS/CDC Did This Week—and Why Blanket Bans on Accommodations Violate the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
Sep 22, 2025By Shaun Southworth — Attorney for Federal Employees
- What just happened: CDC told staff it was pausing approvals of telework as a reasonable accommodation (RA)—and indicated renewals wouldn’t continue—after HHS issued a new telework instruction on Aug. 13. After immediate union pushback and national coverage, CDC pulled back and told managers to “hold on taking any immediate action” while it seeks clarification from HHS.
- Why it matters: Under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, agencies must make individualized, case-by-case RA decisions. Blanket “no telework,” “100% healed,” or “no extended leave ever” rules short-circuit that legal requirement and are typically unlawful unless the agency proves undue hardship in the specific case.
- What to do now: If you have an existing telework RA, keep working under the written terms unless you receive a formal change. If you’re seeking or renewing an RA, submit/refresh your request with medical support tied to job functions, ask for interim measures (including temporary telework), and know your 45-day EEO clock if something adverse happens.
Part 1 — What HHS/CDC did this week, in plain English
On Sept. 16–17, multiple outlets reported that CDC told employees it was revoking permission—at least temporarily—for employees with disabilities to work from home and pausing approvals of new RA telework requests. The internal emails cited a new HHS telework policy and said the pause would last “until further notice.”
By Sept. 19, after union objections and intense scrutiny, CDC told managers to hold off on implementing the changes while it sought guidance from HHS. Reporting indicated that employees with existing, approved RAs could continue teleworking under current terms while the policy is reviewed.
Where this came from: HHS issued Instruction 990-3 (Telework), effective Aug. 13, 2025, emphasizing that telework is not an entitlement, expecting full-time in-person work with situational/ad hoc telework at management’s discretion, and pointing to OPM/OMB return-to-office directives earlier in 2025. The text does not include obvious direction on long-term telework as a disability accommodation, which is part of why CDC said it was seeking clarification.
Bottom line: As of today, the “pause” is paused; the ground truth is evolving, but nothing about HHS policy cancels disability law. Agencies still owe individualized RA decisions; they can’t lawfully impose a blanket ban on a category of accommodations. (More on the law below.)
Part 2 — The legal floor: individualized assessment is not optional
Two statutes govern here:
- ADA (Title I): for private, state, and local employers.
- Rehabilitation Act (§ 501/§ 504): for federal employers and recipients of federal funds; in federal employment, the Rehab Act incorporates ADA standards. That means the same individualized, interactive process applies to agencies.
The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance makes the core rule unmistakable: employers must engage in an interactive process and modify policies when necessary, absent undue hardship. Blanket rules that pre-decide outcomes—e.g., “we never do telework,” “we never extend leave,” “you must be 100% healed”—are inconsistent with that duty.
The regulation texts say it out loud. The ADA regs at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3): to determine an appropriate RA, the employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual. No carve-out for “but if we have a policy.”
And EEOC’s telework guidance (2003): telework can be a reasonable accommodation even if an employer generally prefers on-site work; the question is whether this employee, this job, and these essential functions can be performed with telework without undue hardship.
Federal sector overlay: OPM/OMB guidance implementing 2025 return-to-office policies explicitly recognized exceptions for disability/medical reasons at the agency-head level—another reminder that system-wide RTO goals don’t erase individualized RA obligations.
Part 3 — Why “blanket policies” are illegal under the ADA/Rehab Act
A. The classic “100% healed / no restrictions” rule
Courts have hammered these for 25 years. In McGregor v. Amtrak (9th Cir. 1999), the court explained that a 100% healed policy unlawfully substitutes the policy for the required individual assessment of whether the employee can perform essential functions with or without accommodation. The opinion cites Seventh Circuit cases the same way.
Seventh Circuit decisions such as Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. and Weigel v. Target Stores likewise condemned rigid return-to-work rules that bypass the individualized inquiry. The through-line: no employer gets to pre-empt the ADA by writing a rule that says “we never consider X.”
B. Category bans (e.g., safety assumptions about a disability)
Across circuits, courts have rejected rules like “deaf employees can’t do [job].” In Bates v. UPS (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) and later in Siewertsen v. Worthington Industries (6th Cir. 2019), the courts required an individualized safety (direct-threat) analysis—especially when an employee had already performed the job safely. Keith v. County of Oakland (6th Cir. 2013) (deaf lifeguard) says the same: you must evaluate this person’s ability with accommodations, not rely on generic assumptions.
The Supreme Court’s direct-threat cases (Bragdon, Arline, Echazabal) reinforce that safety judgments must be evidence-based and individualized.
C. Inflexible leave / max-leave policies
The EEOC has repeatedly enforced against no-exceptions leave caps. The Verizon consent decree (2011) cost $20 million and required policy changes to allow disability-related exceptions to a “no-fault” attendance plan. UPS agreed to a nationwide consent decree (2017) after years of litigation over a 12-month maximum-leave rule, paying $1.7–$2 million and revising policies. The consistent theme: employers must consider modest extensions where reasonable, not automatically terminate at a fixed number.
Important nuance: Courts won’t force indefinite or very long leaves. The Seventh Circuit’s Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft treated multi-month leave (beyond FMLA) as generally not a reasonable accommodation; the Tenth Circuit’s Hwang v. Kansas State University upheld a six-month cap in that case. But even these decisions stress the case-specific nature—the opposite of a blanket bar.
D. Telework as accommodation (pre- and post-COVID)
Courts treat telework as fact-intensive. In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc), telework lost on those facts; by contrast, in Mosby-Meachem v. MLGW (6th Cir. 2018), a 10-week telework accommodation for a high-risk pregnancy was reasonable, given the job’s duties and evidence the work could be done remotely. Earlier, the Ninth Circuit’s Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals recognized that working from home can be a reasonable accommodation when essential functions can be performed there. And the D.C. Circuit’s Langon v. HHS (Rehab Act) likewise insisted on a case-specific look at telework. There is no ADA rule that “telework is never allowed.”
The EEOC is enforcing this post-COVID: examples include a $65,000 settlement with TSYS where the Commission alleged an immunocompromised employee’s remote-work request during COVID was denied, and a 2023 settlement with United Labor Agency after denial of a short-term telework accommodation for an employee with cancer.
Part 4 — How an agency must actually decide an accommodation request
The legal test is the same whether you’re HHS, CDC, VA, or a small contractor:
- Essential functions: Identify the real essential functions of the job. Documentation matters—position description, how work is actually performed, performance history, tech and workflow.
- Functional limitations: With medical documentation limited to what’s necessary, understand how the disability limits performance and which tasks/contexts trigger it.
- Interactive process: Brainstorm options with the employee: equipment, schedule changes, task re-allocation, telework (full, hybrid, temporary), different workspace, PPE, or reassignment where appropriate. This is not a checkbox—document the give-and-take.
- Trial periods and revisit dates: Courts and the EEOC look favorably on pilots and re-evaluations for accommodations like telework or modified schedules.
- Undue hardship: Specific, evidence-based. Costs, impact on operations, safety risk in this role, and alternatives tried. Not “we have a policy” or speculation.
Because the Rehabilitation Act applies to federal agencies—and it incorporates the ADA standards—any blanket “no telework” edict that ignores this process is legally vulnerable.
Part 5 — Applying the law to this week’s HHS/CDC developments
- HHS 990-3 re-sets telework as management-discretionary and expects full-time in-person presence, but it doesn’t—and cannot—override statutory RA duties. A policy may set the default, but ADA/Rehab Act require exceptions where reasonable.
- CDC’s initial “pause” on RA telework approvals functioned as a blanket bar—no individualized analysis, no evidence-based undue hardship—triggering exactly the legal concerns you’d expect and spurring a rapid internal hold while HHS clarifies. On the public record, unions called it “the most sweeping civil rights violation against federal employees in decades.”
- What HHS should clarify: that telework remains on the table as an RA where it enables performance of essential functions without undue hardship; that existing RAs continue unless modified through lawful procedures; and that pending requests get timely, individualized decisions. (OPM/OMB already made clear agencies can grant disability-based exceptions to RTO.)
Part 6 — Case law you can cite (and explain) to your team
When you need to make the point that blanket policies are a legal dead end, these are the touchstones I use with federal audiences:
- “100% healed” policies are out:
McGregor v. Amtrak (9th Cir. 1999): An employer may not replace the mandated individualized assessment with a “fully healed” requirement. The court cites Hendricks-Robinson and Weigel approvingly.
Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. (7th Cir. 1998) & Weigel v. Target (7th Cir. 1997): rejecting rigid return rules that bypass case-by-case analysis. - Category bans invite trouble:
Bates v. UPS (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc): can’t categorically bar deaf workers from certain driving positions; must prove individual direct threat. Siewertsen v. Worthington (6th Cir. 2019): policy barring deaf employees from forklifts found unlawful, verdict affirmed. Keith v. County of Oakland (6th Cir. 2013): deaf lifeguard—individualized evaluation required. - Inflexible leave caps violate the ADA:
Verizon (EEOC nationwide consent decree; $20M): “no-fault” attendance plan must allow disability-related exceptions. UPS (EEOC v. UPS; 2017 consent decree; ~$1.7M–$2M): rigid 12-month maximum-leave rule challenged and settled. - Telework depends on the facts (that’s the point):
EEOC v. Ford Motor (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc): telework not required on those facts. Mosby-Meachem v. MLGW (6th Cir. 2018): 10-week remote work was reasonable for an in-house counsel on bed rest. Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals (9th Cir. 2001): working from home may be a reasonable accommodation. Langon v. HHS (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Rehab Act): work-from-home must be genuinely considered. - Supreme Court guardrails (still individualized):
US Airways v. Barnett (2002): reassignment may be reasonable; a seniority system is probative, not absolute—look for “special circumstances.” Bragdon v. Abbott (1998) & Arline (1987): health/safety exclusions must be individualized and evidence-based. Chevron v. Echazabal (2002): “threat-to-self” is a defense—but still individualized. - Recent EEOC enforcement on remote work:
TSYS (2024) settlement for rejecting remote work for an employee at high COVID risk ($65,000); United Labor Agency (2023) settlement over denying telework to an employee in cancer treatment. These reinforce that blanket RTO without disability exceptions draws scrutiny.
Part 7 — What an individualized telework analysis actually looks like
When telework is requested as an accommodation, the legally sound (and human) approach is:
- Map duties to locations. Which duties are location-dependent and which aren’t? What’s the historical reality (including COVID experience) for that role? Document it.
- Assess tools and supervision. Are collaboration, client contact, data access, and oversight feasible via standard tools (VPN, videoconference, shared drives, secure messaging)? If you did it for months in 2020–21, note that.
- Try it and measure. Pilot temporary telework (full or hybrid) with defined check-ins and measurable deliverables. Courts and EEOC see trial periods as good-faith, individualized problem-solving.
- Consider alternatives. If full remote is hard, would hybrid, modified schedules, a different workstation, leave as bridge, or reassignment do it? Barnett tells us reassignment can be reasonable even when it interacts with seniority—case by case.
- If denying, show your work. An undue-hardship denial must rest on specific evidence (costs, workflow, security, mission harm) in this case—not “we have a policy.”
Part 8 — Practical guidance for federal employees right now
If you already have an approved telework RA:
- Keep working under the written terms unless you get formal notice of change. If someone tells you to report in, ask—in writing—for the legal basis, the effective date, and whether an individualized analysis was done. Cite the interactive process requirement (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).
If your RA is pending or you need one now:
- File/refresh a focused request that links functional limitations to essential duties and explains why telework (or another option) addresses those functions. Ask for interim measures (temporary telework; hybrid; duty swaps) while the decision is pending.
- Follow up periodically and document lag times. If delays harm you (e.g., forced leave), note dates and impacts.
If you get a denial or discipline tied to RA/telework:
- Remember the 45-day EEO deadline to contact a counselor after the action or its effective date (29 C.F.R. § 1614.105). Even if you keep working with a temporary arrangement, don’t miss that window.
- Preserve emails, memos, and notes of conversations. The paper often wins the case.
For supervisors/RA coordinators reading this:
- Don’t say “policy says no.” Say, “Let’s look at your job, your tasks, and what might work,” then pilot and document. If you conclude undue hardship, show why, specifically. That’s how you keep both mission and law on your side.
Part 9 — FAQs I’m hearing from federal employees this week
Does HHS’s Instruction 990-3 eliminate telework as a disability accommodation?
No. 990-3 resets overall telework expectations and emphasizes management control, but federal disability law still governs. If telework is an effective RA without undue hardship, you must consider it individually. CDC’s own “pause” is now on hold while HHS clarifies.
Can an agency say “no telework ever” and be done with it?
Not lawfully. The ADA/Rehab Act require an individualized interactive process; blanket bans on accommodation types are exactly what courts and the EEOC have rejected for decades.
What about safety?
You can deny an accommodation that would cause a direct threat—but that determination must be individualized and evidence-based (think: Bragdon, Arline, Echazabal), not stereotype-driven.
How do leave caps fit in?
Fixed “max leave” policies can’t be inflexibly applied. EEOC’s Verizon and UPS cases show you must consider reasonable extensions. Severson/Hwang mark outer limits—but even there, it’s facts, not a slogan, that control.
Part 10 — Closing: lead with law and humanity
This week’s whiplash at CDC is a stress test for every agency wrestling with RTO. The legal compass hasn’t moved:
- Individualize, don’t categorize.
- Engage, don’t stonewall.
- Document, don’t assume.
Policies set the default. The ADA/Rehab Act create the exceptions—because people’s disabilities and jobs are individual. That’s not red tape; it’s how we reconcile mission with dignity and the law.
As you navigate this, keep these four anchors handy:
- EEOC’s RA Guidance (2002) and Telework Guidance (2003)—the playbooks for compliance. EEOC
- 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)—the interactive-process mandate. Legal Information Institute
- OPM/OMB 2025 implementation memos—RTO plans must allow disability-based exceptions. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
- The case law canon above—your receipts when someone says, “We never do X.” (Courts: “That’s the problem.”) Sixth Circuit Court
If you’re facing an immediate directive that conflicts with your accommodation or a pending request, reach out. We can translate these rules into the right paper trail and, if needed, protect your rights on the timeline that matters—the next 45 days.