The Department of Health and Human Services is setting new restrictions on telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.

A new, departmentwide reasonable accommodation policy shared with employees this week states that all requests for telework, remote work, or reassignment must be reviewed and approved by an assistant secretary or a higher-level official — a decision that is likely to slow the approval process.

The new policy, as Federal News Network reported on Monday, generally restricts employees from using telework as an “interim accommodation,” while the agency processes their reasonable accommodation request.

“Telework is not appropriate for an interim accommodation, unless approved at the assistant secretary level or above,” the new policy states.

The updated reasonable accommodation policy, signed on Sept. 15 by HHS Chief Human Capital Officer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Nagy, Jr., replaces a more than decade-old policy, and applies to all HHS component agencies.

“This policy is effective immediately and must be followed by HHS component in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and departmental policy,” the policy states.

It’s not clear how long it will take HHS to review each individual reasonable accommodation request. But HHS, which now handles all reasonable accommodation requests from its component agencies, faces a backlog of more than 3,000 cases — which it expects will take six to eight months to complete.

The new policy allows frontline supervisors to grant “simple, obvious requests” without consulting with an HHS reasonable accommodation coordinator, but prohibits them from granting telework or remote work.

“Telework and reassignment are not simple, obvious requests,” the policy states.

The policy also directs HHS to collect data on the “number of requests that involve telework or remote work, in whole or in part.”

A memo from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that “all telework related to RAs will be repealed,” and that CDC leadership will no longer be allowed to approve telework as an interim accommodation.

“Staff currently on an agreement will need to report back to the worksite,” the memo states.

The CDC memo states employees can still request telework as a reasonable accommodation, but “until they are reviewed and approved by HHS they must report to the worksite.”

It also states that employees can request what was previously known as “medical telework,” which can be approved by the CDC chief operating officer for around six months in length.

According to the memo, CDC can temporarily grant medical telework to employees who are dealing with recovering from chemotherapy, hip replacement surgery or pregnancy complications.

If HHS rejects a reasonable accommodation, the CDC memo states an employee can challenge the decision before an appeal board. The CDC, however, expects that appeal will “also take months to process,” and that employees must continue to work from the office while the appeal is pending.

“We know this is going to be tough, especially on front-line supervisors,” the CDC memo states.

HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard said in a statement that the new reasonable accommodation policy “establishes department-wide procedures to ensure consistency with federal law.”

“Interim accommodations may be provided while cases move through the reasonable-accommodation process toward a final determination. The department remains committed to processing these requests as quickly as possible,” Hilliard said.

Jodi Hershey, a former FEMA reasonable accommodation specialist and the founder of EASE, LLC, a firm that helps employers and employees navigate workplace accessibility issues, said the new policy suggests HHS is “playing fast and loose with the Rehabilitation Act, and what’s required of them” under the legislation.

“This is the most inefficient way to handle reasonable accommodations possible. By centralizing reasonable accommodation-deciding officials, you’re removing the decision from the person who knows the most about the job. The immediate supervisor or manager knows what the job is, how the job is normally performed. They know the employee. When you remove that level of familiarity from the process, and you move it up the chain … that person has no idea what the job even is. They don’t know the person that they’re dealing with. They don’t know the office. They don’t know the particulars at all,” Hershey said.

In a message obtained by Federal News Network, Cheryl Prigodich, principal deputy director for the CDC’s Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management, told an HHS employee that because their one-year reasonable accommodation had expired, they needed to submit a new request for approval.

“The timeframe for approval on your request is not known at this time. In the interim, however, we are not allowed to approve telework as an interim accommodation for a reasonable accommodation,” Prigodich said.

Prigodich told the employee that, according to HHS, employees must either use annual leave, 80 hours of annual ad hoc telework available to each HHS employee, take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or report to the workplace “with the possibility of another acceptable accommodation (work tour, physical modifications to the workplace, etc).”

Prigodich directed the employee to submit their request to renew their reasonable accommodation request to the HHS assistant secretary for administration, but recommended that they “efficiently summarize your concern and request (with appropriate documentation) into no greater than a single-page memo.”

“The ASA will not want to comb through previous emails or too many attachments,” Prigodich said.

The one-page request, she added, should include “why no other alternative accommodation will work,” documentation of the disability, and records showing the previously approved reasonable accommodation.

“I know this is frustrating. We are certainly frustrated too — and this represents a significant policy change for a great number of people who rely on this type of accommodation for their personal health and needs,” Prigodich said.

The post CDC tells staff telework reasonable accommodations ‘will be repealed,’ as HHS sets stricter rules first appeared on Federal News Network.

Former Environmental Protection Agency employees who were fired after signing a letter criticizing the Trump administration are now appealing their dismissals before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The six former EPA employees, who were among roughly 140 workers who signed a “declaration of dissent” in June, argued their firings were not only an illegal response to exercising their First Amendment rights, but also a form of retaliation for “perceived political affiliation,” and executed without cause.

The former employees are represented by attorneys at several law firms in the MSPB case, including the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER, said Wednesday. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing U.S. citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”

An EPA spokesperson declined to comment, stating that the agency has a longstanding practice of not commenting on pending litigation.

The June dissent letter from EPA employees warned that the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin were “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission, and criticized the administration’s policies on public health and the environment. The letter led EPA to launch an investigation into employees who signed the letter, resulting in at least eight probationary employees and nine tenured career employees receiving termination notices. Dozens more who signed the declaration were suspended without pay for two weeks, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.

Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238, which represents EPA employees, said the firings of these employees added to a “brain drain” at EPA, on top of other workforce losses stemming from the deferred resignation program (DRP) and other actions from the Trump administration this year.

“These were subject matter experts — extremely talented people who were working on behalf of the American public to protect them,” Chen said in an interview. “The loss of these people will be felt for quite some time. And honestly, the intent of this action is to put a chilling effect on the rest of the civil service.”

A termination notice delivered to one of the EPA employees shows that in response to concerns of free speech and whistleblower protection violations, the agency’s general counsel office stated that it believed the issues raised “do not outweigh the seriousness of your offense.”

“The Agency is not required to tolerate actions from its employees that undermine the Agency’s decisions, interfere with the Agency’s operations and mission, and the efficient fulfillment of the Agency’s responsibilities to the public,” the termination letter reads. “You hold a trust-sensitive position that requires sound judgement and alignment with the Agency’s communication strategies.”

Despite the employee having a high performance rating and a lack of disciplinary history, the termination letter stated that “the serious nature of your misconduct outweighs all mitigating factors.”

“I also considered that you took no responsibility for your conduct, which reflects a lack of acknowledgment of the seriousness of your actions and raises concerns about your ability to exercise sound judgment and undermines your potential for rehabilitation,” the letter reads.

In August, EPA leadership also canceled all its collective bargaining agreements and told its unions it would no longer recognize them. The decision came after an appeals court allowed agencies to move forward with implementing President Donald Trump’s March executive order to terminate union contracts at a majority of federal agencies.

“If we still had our collective bargaining rights, none of this would have happened in the first place. We would have immediately filed grievances,” Chen said. “[With the MSPB appeal] our hope is that these employees get everything back — that they will have full reinstatement and full back pay.”

The post Fired EPA employees challenge agency, alleging free speech violations first appeared on Federal News Network.

Last week’s conclusion of the record-breaking government shutdown was great news for federal employees in general. But for a few thousand specific feds, it was even better news. They’d been told they were about to lose their jobs completely, and as of Friday, almost all of them have now had those notices formally rescinded.

Filings the Justice Department submitted to a federal court in San Francisco on Friday indicate that each of the more than 3,000 federal workers who had received reduction in force (RIF) notices after the shutdown began have now been formally notified that those RIFs have been cancelled.

That action came as a result of several provisions in the continuing resolution Congress passed last week to reopen the government. The legislation provided that not only any RIF notice an agency issued on Oct. 1 or later “shall have no force or effect,” but it also barred federal agencies from using any funding to conduct any further RIFs for as long as the current CR is in effect.

Those same RIFs were the subject of a union lawsuit that had already resulted in a preliminary injunction putting the layoffs on hold. But the Trump administration argues the continuing resolution means there’s no longer a need to litigate over whether the RIFs were legal in the first place.

“In light of these developments, defendants believe this case is moot,” attorneys wrote in a filing Friday.

In all, agency-by-agency filings show the administration attempted to fire a total of 3,605 employees during the shutdown — with RIF notices ranging from more than 1,300 at the Internal Revenue Service to 54 at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

(Story continues below table)

Agencies updated their filings on Friday to indicate that they had complied with the directive Congress included in the CR to notify each employee that their RIF notices have been withdrawn.

However, there is some doubt as to the fate of 299 positions in the Department of Education’s civil rights division. Although the department notified those workers on Oct. 14 — a time period during which Congress undid all other RIF notices — the government argues that those specific notices were first issued in March, and consequently weren’t covered by the continuing resolution.

“Although the March 2025 RIF group of OCR employees is an entirely separate group from the 137 OCR employees to whom October 10 RIF notices were issued, and finalizing the March 2025 RIF does not involve issuing or implementing a RIF during and because of the shutdown, ED has paused separating the March RIF OCR employees pursuant to this court’s preliminary injunction pending clarification from the court that the current preliminary injunction does not encompass ED’s March 2025 RIF,” Jacqueline Clay, the department’s chief human capital officer wrote in a declaration.

The post More than 3,600 feds get notice their shutdown RIFs are rescinded first appeared on Federal News Network.

The National Treasury Employees Union is suing the Trump administration in an attempt to gain records of career federal employee positions that may be targeted for removal of job protections.

NTEU’s lawsuit, filed last week against the Office of Personnel Management, alleged that OPM violated the Freedom of Information Act by not responding to the union’s FOIA request from August. The union had requested documentation of employees who will be potentially impacted by the Trump administration’s “Schedule Policy/Career” order, which seeks to make tens of thousands of career federal employees at-will workers and easier for agencies to fire.

“The government cannot hide information that is critical to safeguarding workplace rights and protections for frontline federal employees in multiple agencies across the country,” NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement. “We expect OPM and the administration to identify as soon as possible which federal jobs are being targeted so we can do everything we can to stop the reclassifications.”

Under federal statute, agencies are required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days. In “unusual circumstances,” that timeframe can be extended for an additional 10 days.

But NTEU said in its lawsuit that OPM has not responded to the FOIA request at all, and that the time period for responding has lapsed. NTEU submitted its initial FOIA request on Aug. 20.

“There is no legal basis for OPM’s failure to respond to NTEU’s request or for its failure to produce the requested records within the statutory time period,” NTEU wrote.

The federal union is arguing that OPM’s failure to respond to the FOIA request is unlawful, and calling for a release of the requested records.

An OPM spokesperson did not immediately respond to Federal News Network’s request for comment.

NTEU’s push for information comes after President Donald Trump in January signed an executive order to revive the federal employment classification previously known as “Schedule F.” Though it is now called “Schedule Policy/Career,” the effort mirrors a former executive order from Trump’s first term that sought to remove job protections from broad swaths of the career federal workforce.

OPM proposed regulations for implementing the new employment classification in April. Although the regulations are not yet finalized, they have been moved into the “final rule stage,” and are slated for possible publication by the end of November, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda.

The White House website states that the final rule will impact “policy-influencing positions” and that the rule’s implementation will “increase career employee accountability.”

All federal positions that are reclassified as “Schedule Policy/Career” will become at-will, and employees will no longer be able to appeal adverse actions against them.

“This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives,” OPM states in the regulatory agenda item.

The Trump administration has generally argued that the reclassifications will hold federal employees more accountable and provide more flexibility to agencies. But federal unions, as well as many lawmakers and workforce experts, have said reclassifying employees in this way will lead to politically motivated firings, and an erosion of the apolitical nature of the career civil service.

Earlier this year, OPM also published guidance to set initial expectations for agencies to implement the Schedule Policy/Career employment classification. The guidance targets a wide range of federal positions that may be subject to reclassification.

OPM has estimated that about 50,000 career federal employees in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating” positions will be reclassified as a result of Trump’s order. But OPM’s latest estimate is on the lower end of the scale: Documents from Trump’s first term showed that around 200,000 career federal positions could have their job protections stripped.

NTEU previously sued the Trump administration in January after the initial Schedule Policy/Career executive order was released. The first lawsuit alleges that Trump’s order violates established federal hiring principles and the due process rights of federal employees.

Combined, Greenwald said the two lawsuits from NTEU “are about making sure that the American people have their government services delivered by federal employees who were hired based on merit and skill, not partisan affiliation.”

The post Federal union sues OPM, seeking release of ‘Schedule Policy/Career’ records first appeared on Federal News Network.

• A federal union is suing the Trump administration for not handing over a list of employees that agencies might be targeting to remove their job protections. The new lawsuit from the National Treasury Employees Union alleges that the Office of Personnel Management violated the Freedom of Information Act by not providing those details. The union’s legal action comes after the Trump administration earlier this year revived an effort to make large portions of the federal workforce at-will and easier to fire.
  (Lawsuit alleging FOIA violation by OPM - National Treasury Employees Union)
• The Department of Homeland Security is giving bonuses to Transportation Security Administration employees who worked through the partial shutdown. More than 270 Transportation Security Officers at Logan airport in Boston are among the first TSA employees to receive a bonus from DHS for working without pay during the 43-day shutdown. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem awarded these TSOs a $10,000 bonus on Saturday in appreciation for their dedication and commitment over the last seven weeks. DHS said it is paying for these bonuses using carryover funds from fiscal 2025. Noem announced the administration's plan to give these bonuses on Friday.
  (270 TSOs receive $10,000 bonus for working during shutdown - Department of Homeland Security)
• About 4,000 federal employees who were previously told they were going to be laid off should be receiving a cancellation notice by the end of the day. The spending agreement Congress passed last week gave agencies five days to rescind all reductions-in-force that were announced during the shutdown. OPM said the cancellation notices to employees need to include how much back pay the workers will receive. The employees are owed payments equal to what they would have been paid, had they not been laid off in the first place.
  (RIF actions affected by continuing appropriations - Office of Personnel Management)
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition system reforms could meaningfully reshape how the Pentagon does business, only if the department can avoid the mistakes of the past. Acquisition experts say the reforms could help to break down entrenched silos across the department’s acquisition enterprise and drive greater coordination and integration. But the success of Hegseth’s reforms will hinge on whether the department can change its culture and equip the workforce with the skills needed to operate differently. Otherwise, the system can quickly revert to its old ways. And whether the department has the workforce to support such a sweeping overhaul is unclear. DoD has already lost 5% to 8% of its civilian workforce since the start of the Trump administration.
  (DoD acquisition reform: What will it take to make it last? - Federal News Network)
• SAIC continues its bloodletting, just three weeks after moving on from its CEO. The federal contractor parted ways with three more executives and consolidated business groups. The company said Josh Jackson, its executive vice president for the Army, David Ray, its space and intelligence EVP, and chief innovation officer Lauren Knausenberger will pursue other opportunities outside of the company. Additionally, SAIC will merge its Army and Navy business groups into one and bring its Air Force and Combatant Commands, and the Space and Intelligence business groups together to become the Air Force, Space and Intelligence Business Group.
  (3 more SAIC executives to leave the company - SAIC)
• Agencies are being reminded to patch unsecure devices that are being targeted by hackers. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said some federal agencies haven’t fully patched vulnerable Cisco devices. CISA directed agencies to update that software back in a September emergency directive. But in new guidance last week, CISA said it’s aware of multiple organizations that haven’t updated to the minimum software version. The cyber agency warned that the vulnerable Cisco device software poses a significant risk to all organizations.
  (Updated implementation guidance for emergency directive on Cisco - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
• The Department of Homeland Security is facing calls to release an unclassified report on security flaws in U.S. telecommunications networks. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) wrote Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, urging them to publish the report from 2022. They say not publishing it undermines the public debate over how to best secure U.S. telecom networks. The lawmakers point to the recent "Salt Typhoon" campaign, in which suspected China-backed hackers successfully broke into American telecom systems and devices.
  (Wyden, Warner telecoms security letter - Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) )
• The Department of the Navy’s new Innovation Adoption Kit lays out a unified framework for evaluating, implementing and scaling innovative technologies across the naval enterprise. The memo is designed to help commanders and program managers bridge the gap between emerging commercial solutions and mission-ready capabilities. It offers practical methods to accelerate the transition from pilot to program of record and tailor agile approaches to fit within the Navy’s operational and acquisition constraints. Officials say these tactics can be applied across a wide range of missions.
  (Navy unveils toolkit to speed adoption of emerging technologies - DON CIO)

The post National Treasury Employees Union sues Trump administration first appeared on Federal News Network.

• Transgender Air Force and Space Force servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions that had been previously granted by the Air Force secretary. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January that banned transgender people from serving in the military. In June, the Air Force approved retirement orders for the Airmen named in the lawsuit, but two months later the service reversed the course, informing airmen, each with at least 15 years of service, that they would be separated without retirement benefits under the ban. The lawsuit argues that revoking those retirement orders violates Air Force policies and procedures. Transgender servicemembers affected by this will lose an estimated $1 to 2 million over the course of their lifetimes, the lawsuit says. It will also strip them of lifetime access to TRICARE health coverage.
  (Transgender veterans sue Trump administration for denying retirement benefits - U.S. Court of Federal Claims)
• The bill to re-open the federal government would also extend a critical cybersecurity law. The continuing resolution passed by the Senate would extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 until the end of January. The law’s authorities expired on Oct. 1. Experts say CISA 2015 provides crucial liability and privacy protections that encourage companies to share data about cyber threats. Government officials say companies have continued to share information following the law’s expiration. But they say a longer-term lapse could derail public-private collaboration on cyber threats.
  (CR bill text - Senate Appropriations Committee )
• A bipartisan bill would require the Labor Department to keep track of AI-related layoffs happening across the federal workforce. The bill would also require the department to collect data on AI’s impact on jobs at major companies. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are leading the bill. They say the legislation would give the federal government a clearer picture of which jobs are impacted the most by AI and which new jobs are being created.
  (Hawley, Warner to introduce bipartisan legislation revealing number of jobs lost to AI - Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.))
• A Senate-passed spending deal to end the government shutdown also sets staffing targets for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The spending bill gives the VA 90 days to provide the House and Senate appropriations committees with a staffing model that will ensure it can provide timely health care and benefits. The VA previously planned to eliminate more than 80-thousand positions, but scrapped plans for a department-wide reduction in force, and instead planned to eliminate 30,000 positions through attrition by the end of fiscal 2025. The spending bill specifically bars the VA from reducing staffing levels, hours of operation or services at the Veterans Crisis Line or any of its other suicide prevention programs.
  (Senate-passed spending deal sets VA staffing targets amid reorganization - Federal News Network )
• Violent threats against public servants have been escalating over the last decade. A new report from the Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project found that threats of doxxing, harassment and physical attacks have all been on the rise since 2013. The two non-profit groups recently released a “security map,” showing not only an increase in volume, but also an expansion of who is targeted.
  (New dataset on threats to public servants reveals over a decade of danger - Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project)
• Federal employees have a new opportunity to share more about their experiences in the workplace this year. The Partnership for Public Service has launched a new governmentwide survey for federal employees, in an effort to fill a major gap in workforce data. The initiative comes after the Trump administration canceled the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey earlier this year. Current civilian federal employees can take the Partnership’s Public Service Viewpoint Survey between now and Dec. 19. The topline results will be released in early 2026.
  (Amid data gap, an alternative to FEVS emerges for federal employees - Federal News Network)
• After a banner recruiting year, the Coast Guard is identifying locations for a new training center. The service released a request for information on Monday to identify facilities that could lodge 1,200 new recruits. The Coast Guard is planning to add 15,000 personnel to its ranks in the coming years. It recruited more than 5,200 new service members last year — well above its annual target of 4,300 recruits. The deadline to respond to the Coast Guard’s training center RFI is Dec. 8.
  (Coast Guard solicits potential locations for additional training center - Coast Guard )
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is putting pressure on a leading industry group to stop opposing bipartisan right-to-repair efforts that would allow service members to fix their own equipment. In a letter to the National Defense Industrial Association, Warren called the organization’s opposition to reform proposals in the House and Senate versions of the annual defense policy bill a “dangerous and misguided attempt to protect an unacceptable status quo of giant contractor profiteering.” NDIA argues that the provision would allow the Defense Department to provide parts, tools and information to any authorized third-party contractor, including a company’s direct competitors. The industry group said these efforts will “hamper innovation” and “deter companies from contracting with the DoD.” Warren said that “the opposite is true” and that the argument “appears to be a late-in-the game effort to confuse and scare members of Congress and muddy the terms of the debate.”
  (Senator accuses defense industry of blocking Congress’ right-to-repair reforms - Federal News Network)

The post Transgender servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript: 

Terry Gerton Well, we’re now in the midst of the longest lapse in appropriations in our government’s history at the federal level, so we kind of were tuned in to the impacts right away on federal workers and contractor workers. What are you seeing now that this has gone on for over a month?

Andrew Turnbull [It’s] really creating a lot of challenges for federal contractors and their employees. I think we’ve seen, unfortunately over the last decade or so, a number of different government shutdowns. And so I think it’s not surprising to either federal contractors or employees that there was going to be a shutdown potentially this time. I think what is surprising at this point is how long it’s going on. And so this is really causing a lot of issues for contractors and their employees. You know, certainly from the contractor side of the house, some are experiencing stop work orders; they’ve already had those. They’re getting delays in contracts, awards and payments. And obviously this impacts their cash flows, their project timelines, how are they going to do the work that they’re contracted to do, but it also has a lot of ripple effects for their employees. We are seeing a lot of cases where certain contractors’ employees have been permanently laid off. In a lot of other cases they’re just being furloughed and some of them are being asked to use their PTO during this period of time to kind of cover their pay. But, you know, this is continuing to go on and so that PTO is running out and that is causing a lot of unique issues for contractors to have to navigate. And so there’s a lot of business and legal issues for contractors to consider here. They need to think through various federal and state compliance issues like wage and hour issues, providing advanced notice for layoffs. If they have unionized workforces, maybe there are going to be issues with having to comply with their collective bargaining agreements or potentially bargaining with their unions. And then from the business side of the house there are a lot of practical issues in terms of trying to have good employee relations here. You know, they want to certainly treat their employees the right way and also try to retain the talent so when the shutdown hopefully ends and they get the work back they can have everybody back in the seat and retain the good people.

Terry Gerton Talk us through some of those labor law issues that apply to the private sector that are different from how federal employees, furloughed federal employees or accepted service are are affected.

Andrew Turnbull One of the big issues that comes up here is wage and hour compliance. And that applies sometimes to federal employees as well, but also certainly to private contractors. And there’s a federal and state overlay that can sometimes have conflicting rules on certain things. A lot of contractors have had to furlough employees so they don’t have work for them at a certain point in time. And if you’re talking about non-exempt employees, employees who are eligible for overtime and are hourly workers, it’s generally, from a wage and hour perspective, pretty easy for compliance because if they’re not working, you don’t have to pay them. Now that could not be the case, particularly if you have a collective bargaining agreement, there may be issues where you have to bargain with the union or comply with that. But it becomes much more complex where you have exempt employees who you pay a salary to and you don’t have to pay overtime to. Exempt employees, per federal and state law, have to receive their full salary for any week in which they perform any work. Now, this is regardless of the number of days or hours that they work in a week, and you can’t deduct from their salary for like partial day absences. So, you know, essentially what contractors have to do is make sure that they don’t perform any work during a work week during a furlough, or they could be on the hook to pay their entire salary. And if you fail to comply with this, you potentially could lose the exempt status for that employee. And in some circumstances, you may lose that for all employees who are in the same position, so it’s a big issue to comply with. And this creates a lot of practical challenges because we all know during shutdowns, there’s a lot of ongoing work where things kind of ramp up, may shut down, or maybe it’s periodic. And so how do you comply with this? How do you tell people, hey, you can’t work at all, or you can only work these amounts, and making sure that you have the funds to pay for these things. And in some cases, the government’s not going to pay you for all the idle time that they’re doing. And then it creates practical challenges from a compliance and also a business perspective. Another issue that can come up too is that some contractors, unfortunately, due to being cash-strapped, may have to ask certain employees to take salary reductions. And they can do that under federal law. State laws may differ on some of this, but they have to be very careful in terms of how they do these salary reductions. Obviously, there’s an employee relations issue to that, but from a wage and hour perspective, they can’t reduce it below a certain minimum salary threshold, or they can void that exempt status. And they also can’t kind of fluctuate their salary back and forth because if they do that, then they’re considered more like hourly employees, and they may also lose the exempt. PTO can also create some interesting issues as well. Most companies that have PTO policies, they have to make a business decision. Do we want to force our employees to use their accrued PTO during this period of time? You know, that’s not an easy question for all companies. Employees sometimes view that very negatively, but from a compliance perspective, most of the time, employers can have a right to force their employees to use their PTO subject to certain exceptions. Certain state laws may have certain rules around when you can have employees use their PTO. For example, PTO may include paid sick leave and some states have mandatory paid sick leave thresholds, and it could violate paid sick leave laws to mandate that an employee have to take a paid sick leave for something like a furlough, which is not a covered reason for that sick leave.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Andrew Turnbull. He’s the co-chair of the employment and labor practice at Morrison and Foerster. It sounds like from a corporate HR perspective, this is a really tricky time. And on top of that, the federal Wage and Hour office is mostly furloughed, so there’s less oversight and really not anybody to call if you have questions. How are companies navigating in this time frame?

Andrew Turnbull Yeah, I think at this point a lot of companies are having to make sure that they look at their compliance. There are a lot of areas that you can misstep, and even though maybe some of these federal regulators right now are not looking at these claims, certainly the plaintiff’s bar is. And employees know how to contact attorneys and enforce their rights. And in some cases, these attorneys are not going to go through federal enforcement agencies, they’re gonna go straight to court, particularly for wage and hour issues. Another issue that can come up here is the federal WARN Act. And states have a lot of WARN laws, and that creates a lot of issues. So these WARN laws typically require contractors to provide advanced notice if they are going to lay off and, in some cases, furlough employees for a certain period of time. Under the federal WARN Act, if there is a mass layoff or a plant closing, you have to provide sixty days advanced notice. Now you could, in some instances, pay in lieu of, but that’s a bigger chunk of money if the company can’t provide that advanced notice. The good news is under federal WARN, they do have an exemption for furloughs. So, if it’s not an actual employment loss, you do and plan as the employer to call back these individuals to work, there is a six-month period of time where you could furlough someone without triggering WARN. We hope that this shutdown does not go past six months, so for most federal contractors, you may not trigger federal WARN. But not all states follow that same exception for their many state WARN laws. For example, California famously does not follow that. If you have furloughed employees for a certain period of time and you trigger that law from a WARN perspective, you may still have to comply with it. It creates a very nuanced kind of patchwork of laws that you have to kind of think through in this area. And that’s just one example of the many things that contractors have to continue to navigate.

Terry Gerton It sounds like there’s a lot of uncertainty and a lot of variability in how these wage and hour laws apply to companies depending on where they are, how long their folks might be off the job and when they might alert them to come back. Are there best practices that you suggest for companies as they’re trying to communicate with their employees about what’s happening?

Andrew Turnbull Yes, I think it is hard for a lot of contractors to [spend] a lot of time in these in these types of situations. You may receive a stop work order and have to immediately stop work and make decisions on that.  But I think this is where trying to get as much advanced planning as possible is very key here. There are a lot of issues to consider and plan for, as we’ve talked about: wage and hour issues, WARN issues. And a lot of times when you have contractors, there are a lot of stakeholders that you have to consider internally, both from a management and executive capacity. You may have other types of subcontractors and other entities that you may need consider what to do with. There are a lot of decisions to be made. Planning as early as possible is very key here. And, working closely with your internal or external counsel to understand what the landmines are that you need to navigate here. As you mentioned, communication is key, and that goes for multiple levels. One of those is making sure you communicate with your customer, the government customer, what are the expectations here from the government customer? Is it completely stopping work? Is it stop and start? What are their expectations? They may not know all of these things, but certainly trying to have good communication with them to understand what they are being pressured to do at this point in terms of their funding, what do they expect. And that will hopefully give you some insight to plan a little bit better. Also, understand in past government shutdowns, some contractors were not reimbursed for days their employees were idle. I don’t know if agencies are going to have clarity on that here, but maybe talk with your contracting officers to understand if that is going to be the case going forward. They may not have received any direction on that yet, but [it’s] certainly something to cover with your contracting officer. Also, make sure you communicate with, obviously, impacted employees. Retention and employee morale is key here. It’s a difficult time for everyone and I think [it’s beneficial] having some sensitivity with your employees, making sure that your communications are clear, consistent, transparent. Obviously, you may not know all the details of everything, but try to be as transparent as possible. Make sure they understand the rules of the road that you’ve set in place and make sure that managers understand those things as well. We talked about the wage and hour compliance issue earlier, and if you have employees who are exempt employees, who are furloughed in a week, and you don’t want them to perform any work during that work week so you don’t have to actually pay their full salary. You want to make sure that you have communications in place to inform employees: do not perform any work. You may even want to think about taking a step further and saying, we’re just going to cut your system access during this period of time so you can’t actually work. You might want to hop on an email and we don’t want to have to pay you for that. These are all things that you have to kind of think through as a best practice [in these scenarios]. I think the other thing is there are a lot of things that can come into play here from a contractual and legal perspective. Sometimes we will find that in the haste of doing things, people may forget, oh yeah, this employee actually has an employment agreement that requires severance. Maybe it’s for good reason if you diminish their duties at all, and a furlough may trigger that. [You should] making sure that you know where all the different traps could be can take time to pull these things together. So checking all those boxes. And then this is obviously a fluid situation. Be prepared to monitor and adjust and ramp back up and ramp down as need be.

The post The shutdown creates an employment law minefield for federal contractors first appeared on Federal News Network.

Federal employees are picking up flexible gig jobs and investing more time in their side hustle to help make ends meet through the longest government shutdown on record.

And with many missing their second full paycheck this week, more feds are likely to explore back up sources of income while navigating a patchwork of rules that govern outside work for federal employees.

Federal employees are generally allowed to accept outside employment, so long as the job doesn’t conflict with their official position. The Office of Government Ethics maintains general standards on outside activities for federal employees. OGE has also published guidance specific to employees who are in non-pay status during a shutdown.

But each agency also has its own rules and processes for staff seeking outside employment. Most agencies advise employees to consult with an agency ethics officer before taking a second job.

“What it comes down to is that you can’t work for anybody that does any business with your agency, that wants to do business with your agency, that’s regulated by your agency, that has interests that might be affected by what your agency does, or in particular, what you do,” Erik Snyder, a federal employment attorney, told Federal News Network.

“The safest thing to do is to ask your ethics officer what is and what is not OK,” he added.

But ethics officials may also be furloughed during the shutdown, making it difficult to clear an outside job in advance. The Defense Department’s furlough guidance advises employees to consult with their agencies on any outside jobs once the shutdown is over.

“Once employees return to their federal employment, they should consult with agency ethics officials to discuss whether their outside employment during the lapse would require them not to work on matters involving their former employer for a period of one year,” the DoD guidance states. “If an employee is going to continue outside employment after returning to federal service, it is vital that the employee meet with an ethics official to ensure that the outside employment does not create a conflicting interest with the employee’s federal duties.”

Still, most rank-and-file employees are unlikely to run afoul of ethics rules by, for instance, taking a second job driving for Uber or pet sitting on Rover. The job site Indeed Flex surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults impacted by the shutdown last month and found 30% are using gig app platforms to quickly make money.

Even excepted employees, such as air traffic controllers, have started exploring gig work during their off-hours.

“People are finding they’re having to supplement their income by any means necessary, and what flexible work does, what these gig apps do, it allows people to maintain their full-time job, but be able to pick up gigs, pick up work that fits around their work life schedules to enable to earn more money,” Novo Constare, CEO and co-founder of IndeedFlex, told The Federal Drive with Terry Gerton in a recent interview.

Meanwhile, 43% of those surveyed by Indeed Flex said they were seeking remote or freelance opportunities, while 30% are looking for administrative, clerical, customer service, or call center work.

“They were looking for flexible work that suited or match their current skill set,” Constare said.

Meanwhile, some furloughed feds have also delved into side projects during the shutdown. A furloughed IRS attorney, for instance, had intended to run a hot dog cart on the weekends. But once the shutdown hit, he took it full time.

But even passion projects come with ethics rules. A DoD official, who for years has run a craft business during nights and weekends, described the detailed financial disclosure requirements and ethics training that comes with a side hustle. Senior government officials are subject to more rigorous requirements and restrictions around outside employment.

“They take it very seriously,” the official, who requested anonymity, told Federal News Network.

While hot dog carts and wood crafting are unlikely to trip ethics restrictions, feds should be more careful about side hustles that are more closely related to their official job duties. For instance, some furloughed feds may be exploring doing consulting in their area of expertise.

Michael Fallings, managing partner at law firm Tully Rinckey, said there isn’t any blanket prohibition on such work. But feds should be mindful of any potential conflicts of interest.

“If you’re an attorney representing the government, and you start a business representing individuals that may compete against the government, then that could be a conflict” Fallings said. “It could be allowable. It does depend on what the nature of the second business or the consulting is, but it’s always best to disclose that to your employer, rather than the employer finding out after the fact.”

The post Feds navigate rules for gig work, side hustles amid shutdown first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript:

Eric White: In your experience of federal lawsuits pertaining to back pay during shutdowns, this one is going on and on pace to perhaps even be longer than the longest one in history just because we’ve really seen no movement or headway. What are we in for here and what have been your thoughts as you’ve seen this shutdown play out?

Heidi Burakiewicz: I wish I could answer the question about what we’re in for as people have been saying over and over since January 20th, this is unprecedented times and that continues here. It looks as though the shutdown has the potential to last as long as the last one, which lasted for 35 days, from December 2018 through 2019 and as far as sort of what we have in store for us, it’s unclear. The administration is threatening to not pay federal workers who are furloughed. They are using this as an opportunity to RIF and remove thousands of federal employees just because they work on programs that this administration does not endorse. Once again, federal workers are under attack and it’s unnecessary.

Eric White: Yeah, the threats of not giving back pay, I was curious on what effect that could potentially have for any future litigation. We’ve heard the president’s tweets mentioned in several federal workforce-related lawsuits that are currently ongoing between federal employee unions and things of that nature. Could that be invoked when someone like yourself or a class action lawsuit in the future going for back pay during the shutdown? What effect does that have on it or does it not have an effect at all? Am I overthinking it?

Heidi Burakiewicz: Well, during in 2019, Congress amended the Anti-Deficiency Act specifically to confirm that employees, whether they are accepted and working during the shutdown or whether they’re furloughed, that they will be paid at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriation ends. So to me, the law is quite clear that these employees are all entitled to back pay once the lapse of appropriation ends. So we’ll have to wait and see if the Trump administration actually follows through with its threats to not pay those workers who have been furloughed. And then of course, I envision that there’ll be legal action that will be taken if that is to take place.

Eric White: And so on that notice, like I said, would the Anti-Deficiency Act be the main focal point of an argument for any future lawsuit since the administration seems to have just ignored it and including taking it down from certain websites and everything else. I’m just wondering what any possible defense could be if the law is the law. Is it just a matter of trying to wait these folks out and hope that not as many will come forward looking for back pay?

Heidi Burakiewicz: I’m not sure what this administration thinks the defense would be. The law, as I said, it’s pretty clear to me that federal employees are guaranteed pay as soon as possible after the lapse in appropriation ends. I can’t speak for this administration and why they would choose not to follow that clear-cut law.

Eric White: Gotcha. All right. We’re speaking with Heidi Burakiewicz. She’s a partner with Burakiewicz and DePriest. On the reductions-in-force, that is something that is also unprecedented. Rifing in agency, I know that that’s not pertaining to the lawsuits that you worked on in the past, but how much more difficult does it make it to endure being either furloughed or accepted work and then, all of a sudden, you also get a rift notice in the mail. I can’t imagine that that’s going to go unnoticed as well in the in the courts, right?

Heidi Burakiewicz: Yeah, absolutely. There’s already litigation that’s been filed. For example, in the Northern District of California to stop the reductions-in-force that the administration is pushing forward during the shutdown. AFGE and the democracy groups, Democracy Defenders, Democracy Forward, are at the forefront of that as they have been with so much to protect federal workers. There is currently a temporary restraining order in place, I believe, that they filed for preliminary injunction yesterday to keep these illegal RIFs from moving forward. And I just can’t emphasize, there was an article, we’ll get the quote not right, but there was an article in the Washington Post several months ago talking about how the administration purposely wanted to basically torture the federal workforce and they’re using this shutdown as an opportunity to further do this. All of the attacks on the federal workforce are just not necessary, threatening not to pay the furloughed workers, rifing employees during the shutdown. Absolutely, even if there is a lapse in appropriations, it is not necessary for the Trump administration to attack the workforce the way they are.

Eric White: Any suggestions for employees that are going to be looking to enact their right to go to court after all this is said and done? I don’t know if there is any, you obviously save the RIF notice if you have it, I guess. But is there anything that former or current federal employees should do if they are looking to go that direction once the shutdown has ended and things get back to normal?

Heidi Burakiewicz: Well, I hope that the RIFs do not take place, that the unions who have been just instrumental in protecting the federal workforce and really trying to save democracy, I hope that their lawsuits are successful and that the RIFs that the administration has tried to put forward during the shutdown, that they’re able to stop them. If not, I would recommend any federal worker who has a RIF notice that is going forward. There’s the Federal Workers Legal Defense Network, which is providing an army of volunteer attorneys who are providing help to federal workers who need it, such as people who are experiencing these RIFs. So absolutely reach out, try to get help and challenge these illegal RIFs that are happening.

The post When the government shuts down, who protects federal workers’ paychecks and their jobs? first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton: Melwood has been a leader in disability employment for nearly six decades. How would you describe the mission today and how has it changed over that time?

Larysa Kautz: Well, today Terry, Melwood is actually a family of companies with a shared vision of a world in which people with disabilities are fully included. For about six decades, we were one nonprofit entity and recently we restructured in a way so that we can serve more people, have a greater impact and grow the number of individuals that we serve.

Terry Gerton: Tell us about that restructuring and what it looks like today.

Larysa Kautz: So today it looks like Melwood Inc. is our parent holding company, where we have all of our shared services, which we then flow down to our subsidiary companies, one of which is a federal contractor, a social enterprise through which we employ nearly 900 individuals with disabilities on 60-plus federal contracts around the D.C. region. And we have Melwood Community Services, which provides license services to individuals like day programs. We have a camp for children with and without disabilities. We do after-school programs. We’re working on affordable housing now. So we have a number of companies with different missions, but all basically united by this vision that people with disabilities will have every opportunity that they’d like to be included in the community.

Terry Gerton: It sounds like it’s more a life cycle of care.

Larysa Kautz: Absolutely. We started doing a lot of workforce development and employment. That was the goal that began our nonprofit. But the more you work with that one pillar of the stool that makes up anyone’s life, the more you see the need for health care, housing, community and other aspects of what helps any person reach their full potential and live a life in the community that they choose.

Terry Gerton: Let’s go back to the specific vocational support services that you offer. What are some unique capabilities that you provide to help individuals with disabilities really succeed and grow?

Larysa Kautz: Absolutely. So we start from the pre-work world, which is workforce development, and we have done boot camps and trainings in a variety of different industries, including IT and tech, cybersecurity, AI. The construction trades, including as well as custodial, landscaping, mail room, will help train anybody with a disability in any field that they would choose to enter. Then we help them find a job, either with Melwood or with an employer in the community. And then we stay with them as a job coach, as someone that helps them integrate into the workforce, have hard conversations with your supervisor. How do you write an email when you’re angry and frustrated and work with transportation needs, housing needs, other things that arise that really do throw barriers and pitfalls in your road as you try to continue your career.

Terry Gerton: That sounds like training all of us could use a little bit of a refresher on.

Larysa Kautz: I think that’s right. I mean, I think the needs of every person with a disability are not unique. I think a lot of the needs are the things that we see. And we do a lot of training for employers as well and individuals who do not have disabilities on how to help accommodate, be inclusive and really listen to the needs of their employers and colleagues.

Terry Gerton: So as you bring these folks into the federal contractor space at Melwood, what are the toughest adaptations that they go through and how then do you work with government agencies to make sure that they’re effectively using the talents of these individuals?

Larysa Kautz: So one of the hardest barriers to overcome is taking yourself from your home environment, which you have managed to accommodate to your comfort level, to your sensory needs, to accommodate any physical needs, and to then find yourself in a job, 9 to 5, every day of the week that wasn’t necessarily crafted or created for a variety of different disabilities. And so we certainly work in our buildings as well as in government buildings to create opportunities to have a quiet space, to have a space where you can go kind of decompress if that’s something that’s needed during the day or to be able to go run around and get out some of the stimming type of behavior that someone might need to be able to re-regulate and just continue doing their work. I think remote work and hybrid work has helped quite a bit. A lot of our employees and other employees that we see out in the working world to be able to have some days where you can focus without colleagues around, without a lot of noise on the work that you’re doing. And it makes it easier to make it through the days that you do have to go in and have some of that social interaction, especially if you’re not necessarily an extrovert by nature.

Terry Gerton: I’m speaking with Larysa Kautz. She’s the president and CEO of Melwood. Larysa, I want to go back a couple of years because Melwood partnered with MITRE and the University of Washington to launch a neurodiversity at work playbook and pilot with some federal government agencies. Can you tell us what you learned from that pilot and how it’s playing out in the work that Melwood is doing now?

Larysa Kautz: Absolutely. So we created a training program called abilIT about seven years ago to teach neurodivergent individuals the skills they need to get a certificate in a cybersecurity field and then to be able to enter that field. And we worked with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to help them fill openings that they had for cybersecurity specialists and worked with them to understand the value of having someone who looks at things a little bit differently, is neurodivergent and found that the skills that they bring to the table are unlike other skills that organization had seen where they can catch mistakes, they can see patterns, they can really catch issues that weren’t being caught. So it worked wonderfully and we were able to adapt kind of the autism-at-work playbook for neurodiversity in the federal government playbook, which we hope to continue to do in the future. Right now, we’re taking our abilIT program nationwide and teaching other nonprofits around the country to do the training so that we can help fill the labor needs of national companies that are looking for cybersecurity, as well as now, AI technicians and individuals that can get certificates in those fields. And I think the neurodivergent population is perfect for the job.

Terry Gerton: It seems like such a crucial enabler because so many times folks who are neurodivergent have a difficult time getting through the hiring process, right?

Larysa Kautz: Absolutely, and that’s part of the program. It’s a 14-week program. A lot of it is on the substantive IT skills to get your certificate, but half of the time is spent on developing the skills that you need to get through an interview, to get though orientation, and then to grow your career and to be able to communicate with supervisors.

Terry Gerton: I want to also point out a recent study with Virginia Tech showed that Melwood’s model outperforms other employment mechanisms in both quality and cost effectiveness. What is it about the Melwood model, maybe the key ingredient to your soup, that makes it work so well?

Larysa Kautz: A lot of it is the wraparound supports and the professional development supports that we offer, not just to our students, but also to the employers. So having employers at the front end that have needs for the workforce really helps make sure we have the pipeline of workforce development training all the way through the job and then we stay with the individuals and we will coach them and if they don’t make it in the first job, we will help them find a second job. And maybe find a different line of IT tech to go into if the first one that they chose didn’t work.

Terry Gerton: I know you’ve been in this space for a while, but I’m wondering, are there still things that surprise you in encounters with employers as they encounter this population?

Larysa Kautz: Well, one of the employers that we’ve worked with, Enabled Intelligence in Falls Church, they do data annotation and labeling for computer vision models, teaching AI, essentially, to recognize what is on a picture or on a map. And they have both higher quality and speed in the work that they’re able to do. As a for-profit company, they’re recognizing the return on investment that they have by making their hiring practices inclusive of the neurodivergent population. So there really is an economic reason to do this.

Terry Gerton: And what would you recommend as best practices for other employers, public or private, who want to build more inclusive workforces?

Larysa Kautz: I would encourage them to not be afraid of the word disability and to include a conversation about inclusion and accommodations right up front in their job descriptions, in their hiring practices, in their orientation and create space for people to feel comfortable asking for accommodations, which frankly usually cost less than $400 per employee, often are free and will create an inclusive culture for all of your employees.

Terry Gerton: And find a workforce that’s liable to stick with them for a long time, right?

Larysa Kautz: Absolutely. You’ll find loyal employees that will not job hop, but will stay in a place where they feel welcome.

The post Melwood is proving that inclusive employment can thrive first appeared on Federal News Network.