Ask FELTG: Can the agency deny telework as accommodation because the employee chose to move far away from her duty station?

,

July 21, 2026

The full question:

Dear FELTG: Here’s a hypothetical: an employee who did not need a reasonable accommodation recently moved to a new home in the country, which is a 90 minute drive from her duty station. Now she is claiming that she cannot commute because of medical conditions, and has requested full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation. Can the agency deny the accommodation because the employee chose to move so far away?

Thanks for the question. It’s FELTG’s opinion that the critical issue here isn’t the telework question, but rather the employee’s actions and how those actions impact her medical condition – and whether that even matters.

The definition of disability that’s relevant here is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” 42 USC § 12102(1)(a). So assuming the employee has provided sufficient medical documentation that the condition is a disability, how the individual developed the impairment has absolutely no relevance:

 

Voluntariness is irrelevant when determining whether a condition constitutes an impairment. For example, an individual who develops lung cancer as a result of smoking has an impairment, notwithstanding the fact that some apparently volitional act of the individual may have caused the impairment. The cause of a condition has no effect on whether that condition is an impairment. SeeHouse Judiciary Report at 29 (noting that “[t]he cause of a disability is always irrelevant to the determination of disability”); see also Cook v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation and Hosp., 10 F.3d 17, 63 EPD Par. 42,673, 2 AD Cas. (BNA) 1476 (1st Cir. 1993).

EEOC COMPLIANCE MANUAL § 902.2(e).

Similarly, it would be unlawful for an agency to deny an employee with paralysis an accessible workplace simply because the employee became paralyzed after an accident incurred during a risky base jump or skydiving event.

Rather than focus on the voluntary aspect of the move – which by the way could have been made for health reasons (for example, the need for cleaner air for someone with respiratory issues) – it’s important to keep the focus on the legal process: determine if the employee is a qualified individual with a disability, and whether the agency can provide an effective accommodation (telework; alternate work location) without causing an undue hardship. [email protected]

Note: Federal court decisions applicable to the private sector, and the Federal employee complaints that end up in Federal court, are often more employer-friendly than existing EEOC case law on the topic.

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

You might also like
Another Reason to Do Away with Letters of Counseling
Takeaways from OPM’s 2019 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
A Big Change for Undue Hardship in Religious Accommodation … or Not?
EEOC Case Illustrates the Ugliness of Harassment Based on Disability
More About that Employee Who Left His Laptop Charger at Work During the Pandemic
Biggest MSPB Decision in Over a Decade: The Comparator Framework for 2022 and Beyond