Just days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly halted all long-term work-from-home accommodations for its employees—including those with disabilities—the agency has reversed course, restoring remote work options and sparking a national debate about workplace rights, legal obligations, and the future of federal telework policies.
The turmoil began on September 15, 2025, when the CDC’s Human Resources Office sent a terse email to senior management. According to reporting from STAT and USA Today, this message revoked permission for employees with disabilities to work from home, paused approval of new long-term telework accommodations, and stated that existing agreements would not be renewed. New requests, it said, were on hold "until further notice." Many affected employees—some living with multiple sclerosis, compromised immune systems, or high-risk pregnancies—received less than 8 to 24 hours' notice to return to in-person work.
The policy change did not come out of the blue. As STAT and Debate reported, it followed an August update by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, which excluded long-term telework as an option for federal employees with disabilities. This, in turn, was linked to a January directive from the Trump administration aiming to end remote work for most federal workers. The CDC, caught between new federal guidance and longstanding disability accommodation laws, found itself in a legal and ethical bind.
Advocacy groups, disability lawyers, and union leaders wasted no time voicing their outrage. The AFGE Local 2883 union, representing CDC workers, called the move a "massive civil rights violation" and a "no-win scenario for employees." In a joint press release with AFGE 3840, union leaders said, "This represents the most sweeping civil rights violation against federal employees in decades. This means no CDC employee with a disability will have the option of telework as a reasonable accommodation." The unions began directing affected members to legal resources, encouraging them to challenge the CDC’s decision in court if necessary.
Legal experts quickly pointed out that the CDC’s action might violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Both laws require federal agencies to provide "reasonable accommodations"—modifications or adjustments that enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform essential job functions. Telework, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has clarified, is considered a reasonable accommodation. Even after the Trump-era memorandum, OPM stated that agencies must allow exceptions for employees with disabilities or medical conditions. Blanket bans on specific accommodations, such as telework, are prohibited; accommodations must be individualized and based on specific job functions.
The backlash from within the CDC was swift and intense. Employees with established accommodations suddenly faced the prospect of losing their jobs or risking their health by returning to the office. Many had received only vague or last-minute explanations for the withdrawal of their remote work permissions. As STAT reported, one employee described the unraveling of vital support systems: "Whether it’s for someone who is immunocompromised or has a caregiver or is pregnant, remote work allows employees to be productive and have financial stability." The timing couldn’t have been worse, coming on the heels of an August shooting on the CDC campus that left many staff fearful for their safety in the workplace.
Complicating matters further, the CDC had dismissed all staff overseeing reasonable accommodations in April 2025 as part of a Trump administration staff reduction. This left employees with pending accommodation requests in limbo, many of whom had been operating under temporary extensions until receiving sudden denial emails earlier in the week. According to STAT, there were even suggestions that these denials had been "un-denied," and employees would not have to return to the office after all.
Amid mounting criticism and legal threats, the CDC’s leadership hesitated. On September 18, Nathan Wells, acting director of the CDC’s human resources office, sent an internal note instructing managers to "hold on taking any immediate action," pending further clarification from HHS. Seth Kroop, deputy director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, wrote in another email, "I believe this is likely to be an interim pause while OHR gets more information from HHS." The agency, it seemed, was scrambling to interpret the evolving federal guidance while managing an internal crisis.
By September 19, the CDC officially rescinded the telework pause. Employees with existing reasonable accommodations were told they could continue teleworking under the terms of their previous agreements. The agency did not provide further details about the reasoning behind the reversal or what future telework policies might look like, and did not immediately respond to media requests for comment, including from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and GeneOnline.
For many, the damage had already been done. Employees described the confusion and stress as "exasperating" and warned that the episode would worsen the CDC’s ongoing staffing challenges. As one employee told STAT, the lack of communication and abrupt policy swings left staff anxious about their job security and physical safety, especially given recent violence on campus. Union president Yolanda Jacobs suggested that the CDC’s interpretation of the HHS policy was an "overreach and overinterpretation," reflecting uncertainty about how to apply the new rules without running afoul of federal disability law.
Beyond the CDC, the episode has broader implications for federal agencies grappling with the return-to-office push and the need to accommodate disabled workers. Disability accommodations, advocates note, are often cost-effective—56% have no cost, and most others cost $500 or less. More importantly, they are required by law and vital to ensuring equal access to employment for all Americans. The CDC’s brief telework ban and its rapid reversal highlight the need for clear, consistent policies that balance operational needs with the rights of employees.
As the CDC awaits further guidance from HHS, the future of telework for federal employees with disabilities remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the agency’s attempt to swiftly end remote work accommodations—however brief—has reignited a national conversation about disability rights, workplace flexibility, and the obligations of government employers. For now, CDC employees with disabilities can continue working from home, but the path forward is anything but settled.
