A federal employee at a Cabinet department in D.C. opens an email announcing that telework is being reduced from four days a week to one, effective in 30 days. A bargaining-unit worker at an independent agency reads the same memo and wonders whether the union should have been consulted before the change. A scientist with a chronic condition that requires telework as a reasonable accommodation reads the agency’s blanket return-to-office order and asks whether the new policy applies to her. Each of these federal workers faces a question that has dominated the D.C. workforce since 2023: what telework rights, if any, can actually be enforced when an agency changes course? A Washington DC federal employee attorney who handles telework and schedule disputes can help a federal worker identify which legal theories have traction and which don’t, before procedural windows close on options that depend on quick action.
The Statutory Baseline at 5 U.S.C. § 6502
Federal telework is governed substantively by the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. The statute requires each executive agency to:
- Establish a telework policy
- Determine the eligibility of all employees for telework
- Notify employees of their eligibility
- Require written telework agreements between agency and employee
- Incorporate telework into continuity of operations planning
- Designate a Telework Managing Officer
The statute creates a framework, but it does not create an entitlement to telework for any particular employee. Agencies retain substantial discretion to determine who is eligible, when telework is appropriate, and how much telework is permitted. Section 6502(a)(2) is explicit: an employee who is determined to be eligible for telework is not required to be permitted to telework if the agency determines that telework is not appropriate for the position.
That language is the legal foundation for almost every agency’s return-to-office authority. Telework is generally a management tool, not an employee right.
What Management Can Generally Do Unilaterally
Federal agencies have broad authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7106 to manage their workforces, including:
- Assigning work
- Determining the methods, means, and personnel by which agency operations are conducted
- Determining where work is performed
The reserved management rights in § 7106(a) are not subject to collective bargaining, although the impact and implementation of such decisions can be negotiable for bargaining-unit employees under § 7106(b).
What this means in practice: an agency that decides to require employees to be in the office four days a week is generally exercising a reserved management right. The decision itself is not subject to challenge by individual employees, although several specific legal theories may apply at the margins.
When Telework Restrictions Can Be Challenged
Several specific frameworks support challenges to telework-related actions, even within management’s broad discretion.
Reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act. Telework is a recognized form of reasonable accommodation under EEOC guidance and federal sector case law. An employee with a disability who needs telework to perform the essential functions of her position has a Section 501 right to that accommodation, regardless of the agency’s general telework policy, unless the agency can show undue hardship.
The accommodation analysis is individualized. Generic agency policies that exclude all telework, or that limit telework to defined categories without considering individual disability needs, are vulnerable under the Rehabilitation Act. The 45-day deadline to contact an EEO counselor applies if a denial is not addressed informally.
Discrimination on a protected basis. If an agency permits telework for some employees and denies it for others in ways that correlate with protected characteristics (sex, race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy), the disparate treatment may support a Title VII or related claim. Patterns matter here: comparator data showing that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more flexible arrangements supports a claim that generic agency assertions of business necessity will struggle to defeat.
Religious accommodation. After Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), religious accommodation requests, including for telework or schedule modifications tied to religious observance, must be granted unless the agency can show substantial increased costs in relation to its operations. The pre-Groff de minimis standard no longer applies.
Whistleblower retaliation. A telework restriction imposed on an employee shortly after a protected disclosure can support a WPA claim, particularly when the restriction departs from the employee’s prior arrangement and is not applied uniformly across the workforce. OSC complaints and MSPB IRA appeals are the enforcement mechanisms.
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act accommodations. The PWFA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg, requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Telework can be an appropriate accommodation under the PWFA framework.
Collective Bargaining and Bargaining-Unit Employees
For employees represented by unions in bargaining units, additional protections may apply. Under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135, agencies generally must give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain over the impact and implementation of changes to working conditions, even when the underlying decision is a reserved management right.
A unilateral change to telework policies that affects bargaining-unit employees, implemented without bargaining over impact and implementation, can be challenged as an unfair labor practice (ULP) before the Federal Labor Relations Authority. ULP charges have specific filing deadlines and procedural requirements.
Existing collective bargaining agreements often contain telework provisions that survive even when the agency announces a new policy. An agreement that guarantees specific telework arrangements may be enforceable through grievance procedures or arbitration, depending on the CBA’s language and the durational provisions.
The 2025 federal labor environment has produced significant litigation over telework provisions in CBAs and the agency authority to reopen or terminate them. Bargaining-unit employees should coordinate with their union representatives early in any telework dispute.
Adverse Action Implications
If an employee refuses to comply with a return-to-office directive, the agency can pursue disciplinary action, up to and including removal, for failure to follow instructions. The Chapter 75 framework applies to such adverse actions, with notice, opportunity to reply, and MSPB appeal rights for those who qualify.
Affirmative defenses available in such cases include:
- The directive was issued in violation of an applicable accommodation request
- The employee had a CBA right to the prior arrangement
- The agency action was retaliatory for protected activity
- The agency failed to bargain over impact and implementation as required
Compliance with the directive while challenging it through other channels (EEO complaints, ULP charges, accommodation processes) is generally the safer posture. Refusal usually accelerates disciplinary action and creates additional issues that are harder to defend.
Schedule Disputes Beyond Telework
Related schedule issues that come up at D.C. headquarters agencies include:
Compressed work schedules and AWS arrangements. Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 6122-6131, agencies have authority to grant or deny alternative work schedules, with similar management discretion to that applied to telework.
Core hours and start-time flexibility. Modifications affect employees with caregiving responsibilities, medical conditions, and disability accommodations.
Overtime and credit hour disputes. Agencies’ enforcement of formal time-keeping requirements has increased post-pandemic and produces FLSA and Title 5 overtime claims.
Each of these areas has its own statutory framework and procedural posture.
Practical Steps When a Telework Change Is Announced
Save the announcement, any individual notices, and any communications about the policy change.
For accommodation cases, file the request in writing immediately, with medical documentation tying the disability or condition to the telework need. Document the agency’s response and timing.
For bargaining-unit employees, contact the union steward or chief steward about the change and the bargaining posture.
Track the 45-day EEO contact deadline if the change implicates a protected characteristic or accommodation request.
Comply with the directive while pursuing challenges through appropriate channels rather than refusing to come in.
Federal employees across the Cabinet departments and independent agencies headquartered in D.C. (DOJ, Treasury, State, DOD, HHS, DHS, EPA, GSA, OPM, SSA, and dozens more) have all faced telework reductions in recent years, and the legal posture varies by agency, by union representation, and by individual circumstances.
For background, telework.gov and opm.gov publish federal telework guidance, eeoc.gov publishes accommodation resources, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 along with 5 C.F.R. Part 410 provide the substantive references.
Talk to a Washington DC Federal Employee Attorney Before You Refuse or File
Telework disputes reward early counsel involvement because the available legal theories are technical and the procedural deadlines run quickly. A Washington DC federal employee attorney who has handled accommodation cases, ULP charges, EEO complaints, and adverse actions arising from telework disputes can help a federal worker identify which theory has traction and pursue it through the right forum. If you’re facing a return-to-office mandate, a denial of telework accommodation, or discipline for refusing to comply, contact counsel before the next deadline runs.
