Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—Agencies may revisit telework accommodations, OPM says, (Feb 12, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Joint OPM-EEOC guidance instructs agencies to conduct individualized assessments before rescinding disability-based telework and clarifies when remote work remains required under the Rehabilitation Act.

Federal agencies may revisit previously granted telework accommodations but may not revoke them wholesale, according to a joint memorandum and accompanying frequently asked questions (FAQ) issued February 11, 2026, by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the EEOC. The guidance instructs agencies to conduct individualized, evidence-based assessments of disability-related telework arrangements considering President Trump’s return-to-office directive and clarifies that telework is required only when necessary to enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits.

The memorandum, signed by OPM Director Scott Kupor and EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, states that agencies remain bound by the Rehabilitation Act even as they implement the President’s instruction to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to in-person work on a full-time basis. The accompanying FAQ provides detailed guidance on when agencies must continue telework as a reasonable accommodation, when they may modify or rescind it, and how they should structure review processes going forward.

Telework policy reset. The memorandum explains that telework and remote work are available only in limited circumstances. These include situational telework approved to meet a compelling agency need, telework provided as a reasonable accommodation for a qualifying disability or medical condition, or other compelling reasons certified by the agency head, such as for certain military spouses or to retain employees with critical skills.

OPM and the EEOC emphasize that many federal employees have requested and received telework as a reasonable accommodation both before and after the President’s return-to-office directive. The new FAQ is intended to help agencies ensure that implementation of the directive remains consistent with the Rehabilitation Act.

The FAQ reiterates that telework refers to work performed at a location other than the employer-controlled worksite and distinguishes among full-time telework, recurring or routine telework, and situational telework. The document focuses primarily on recurring or full-time telework used to enable an employee to perform essential job functions.

Individualized assessments. The guidance makes clear that agencies are not required to continue all previously granted telework accommodations in perpetuity. After granting an accommodation, an agency may assess whether a continuing need exists and whether alternative accommodations would meet that need. The employer retains discretion to choose among effective options, and an employee is not necessarily entitled to a preferred accommodation indefinitely.

At the same time, the memorandum cautions against categorical revocations. Agencies should not take a blanket approach to rescind or deny all recurring or full-time telework accommodations. Because President Trump’s return-to-office directive requires actions consistent with applicable law, agencies must continue to comply with the Rehabilitation Act, which in some cases may require recurring or full-time telework or an effective in-office alternative.

The FAQ strongly cautions against revoking previously granted telework without first conducting an individualized assessment. If an agency rescinds telework without such an analysis, it risks liability where telework is the only effective accommodation or where an in-office alternative is necessary to maintain an effective accommodation. The document also recognizes that large agencies may be unable to make decisions in all cases simultaneously and suggests that reevaluations may proceed on a rolling basis, potentially organized by geographic location or organizational unit to minimize disruption.

Medical support and reassessment. The FAQ describes reevaluation and modification as part of the ongoing interactive process. Agencies may conduct periodic reassessments, such as annual reviews of significant accommodations, and may reevaluate in response to material changes, including changes in an employee’s condition, job requirements, operational needs, or governing law. The President’s return-to-office instruction is identified as a major change in operational circumstances that may justify reevaluation.

Accommodation decisions must be evidence-based. Agencies are entitled to sufficient information to make informed decisions and may request updated medical documentation where necessary. If prior decisions were made on an insufficient record, agencies may make new inquiries to obtain adequate information, including updated medical documentation.

The guidance further states that agencies may ask a health care professional about mitigating measures or self-accommodations that could permit an employee to work in the office. However, agencies may not deny an accommodation because an employee declines to pursue a particular medical treatment, such as medication or surgery.

In cases involving conflicting evidence, agencies may consider reliable contradictory information and, in limited circumstances, may require an examination or record review by an employer-designated health care professional, provided the inquiry remains job-related and consistent with business necessity. The document warns that evidence gathering must be reasonable and not unreasonably broad or invasive.

Essential functions and in-office work. A recurring theme in the FAQ is the centrality of essential job functions. Telework constitutes a reasonable accommodation only if it enables an employee to participate in the application process, perform essential functions, or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. Telework that primarily provides personal benefit, without serving one of these statutory purposes, is not required.

The guidance addresses circumstances in which previously granted telework removed essential functions during the COVID-19 pandemic. It reiterates that temporary excusal of essential functions during emergency conditions does not permanently alter those functions. As workplaces have fully reopened and essential duties restored, agencies may determine that regular in-person attendance is essential for many positions, particularly those involving supervision and teamwork.

Moreover, when an agency replaces telework with an in-office accommodation and an employee asserts that the new accommodation will be ineffective, the agency should allow the employee to explain and provide supporting evidence. If the agency reasonably believes the in-office accommodation will be effective, it may require the employee to report to the office and attempt the accommodation. If experience demonstrates that in-office measures are ineffective, the agency should consider whether returning to telework is required, provided essential functions are not removed and no undue hardship is shown.

Commuting, flare-ups, and discipline. The FAQ also addresses requests tied to commuting difficulties. In general, agencies are not required to eliminate an employee’s commute through telework where the length and means of the commute are outside the employer’s control. Agencies may, however, need to consider workplace modifications, such as flexible scheduling, to facilitate access to the worksite.

For periodic “flare-ups” or elevated symptoms related to a disability, leave may be a reasonable and effective option that an agency may choose instead of situational telework. The guidance notes that federal employees receive paid sick leave and that, in some cases, teleworking during a flare-up could delay recovery.

If an employee refuses to comply with a decision to modify or rescind telework and refuses to report to the office, the agency should confirm that the employee understands the decision and its rationale and invite proposals for additional in-office accommodations. If the employee still refuses, the agency may mark the employee absent without leave and proceed with appropriate disciplinary action. Filing an EEOC complaint does not entitle the employee to continue teleworking during the pendency of the complaint.

Centralized review. The memorandum encourages agencies to consider centralizing review of significant accommodations, including recurring or full-time telework, to ensure consistency and compliance with the President’s return-to-office directive. Any centralized process must still include individualized assessments and avoid unreasonable delays.

News: AgencyNews PublicEmployees DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19