Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Accusing Musk of Scheming to Strip Disability Accommodations
•February 12, 2026
0
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces procedural barriers that federal employees must clear before suing, signaling to agencies that policy shifts affecting accommodations can trigger costly litigation if not properly documented.
Key Takeaways
- •Judge dismissed case due to unmet administrative exhaustion requirement
- •Claims belong before Merit Systems Protection Board, not district court
- •Alleged remote‑work removal linked to Musk‑inspired policy changes
- •Plaintiff never enrolled in alleged resignation program
- •Emphasizes need for clear business reasons when altering accommodations
Pulse Analysis
The pandemic accelerated remote‑work adoption across the federal government, creating a new baseline for disability accommodations. When the USDA reorganized under the Department of Government Efficiency, employees like Stewart, who relied on home‑based work for PTSD, panic disorder, and back pain, faced uncertainty. Although Elon Musk’s involvement is peripheral—primarily through his influence on Secretary Brook Rollins—the allegation that his documented animus toward disabled workers spurred policy changes reflects a broader tension between efficiency drives and longstanding accommodation practices.
Procedurally, Stewart’s case illustrates the strict “administrative exhaustion” rule that governs federal discrimination claims. Plaintiffs must first navigate internal grievance channels and obtain a final agency decision before approaching the courts. Additionally, the Civil Service Reform Act channels most employment‑related disputes to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a specialized tribunal designed to handle such matters. By bypassing these steps, Stewart not only jeopardized his claims but also risked receiving a more favorable outcome than employees who have actually lost their jobs, prompting the judge’s dismissal.
Beyond the courtroom, the decision sends a cautionary signal to HR leaders and policymakers. Any sweeping revision of remote‑work or other accommodations must be anchored in transparent, legitimate business justifications and meticulously documented. Failure to do so can invite allegations of discrimination, even if the substantive claims never reach a verdict. As agencies continue to balance cost‑saving initiatives with legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related statutes, this case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and proactive communication to mitigate litigation exposure.
Judge dismisses lawsuit accusing Musk of scheming to strip disability accommodations
Worker alleges conspiracy to strip remote work rights and force out DEI employees
A federal employee's lawsuit claiming Elon Musk orchestrated an effort to eliminate remote work for disabled workers hit a procedural wall this week.
Fenyang Ajamu Stewart never got his day in court. The Equal Employment Specialist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture filed a sweeping complaint alleging that Musk and senior agency officials conspired to strip away his remote work arrangement and force him out of his civil rights job. But in a decision issued February 11, a federal judge in Washington dismissed the entire case without ever weighing whether the allegations were true.
The reason? Stewart skipped some crucial steps required before federal employees can sue their agencies.
Stewart has worked from home since 2022 as an accommodation for post‑traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and back pain. In his role at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, he adjudicates civil rights complaints. According to his complaint, everything changed after the Department of Government Efficiency was created.
Stewart alleged that Musk, USDA Secretary Brook Rollins, and other officials launched policies designed to eliminate remote work accommodations for disabled employees across the board. He claimed the push was fueled by what he described as Musk's documented animus against people with disabilities.
The complaint went further. Stewart alleged that agency officials also targeted his position because of its connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion work. At one point, he said, employees told him he had been enrolled in a Deferred Resignation Program that would require him to waive all pending claims against the agency. Stewart insisted he never signed up for such a program, and an agency designee later confirmed he had not enrolled.
He filed nine separate claims spanning disability discrimination, constitutional violations, conspiracy, and retaliation. But U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper stopped the case cold on procedural grounds.
The heart of the problem was administrative exhaustion. Federal law requires employees alleging disability discrimination to go through their agency's internal complaint process first and get a final decision before heading to court. Stewart admitted he never completed that process.
He argued it would have been pointless because he thought he had been forced into the resignation program that required waiving claims. Judge Cooper rejected that reasoning. Since Stewart never actually enrolled in the program and still had his job, nothing prevented him from pursuing the required administrative steps.
The judge also threw out claims about Stewart's potential firing or forced resignation. Those fall under the Civil Service Reform Act, which funnels federal employment disputes to the Merit Systems Protection Board, not federal district courts. Judge Cooper noted that letting Stewart bypass that system would give him more rights than employees who actually lost their jobs.
Even Stewart's constitutional claims could not survive. The court found that existing laws already provide enough remedies, blocking the creation of new constitutional claims. His racial discrimination claim failed because he never alleged he actually suffered an adverse action because of his race.
The court did cut Stewart some slack on technical service requirements since he was representing himself without a lawyer. Judge Cooper excused minor mistakes in how Stewart delivered the lawsuit to defendants, reasoning that everyone ended up with proper notice and the government had no trouble defending itself.
For HR professionals, the case offers a reminder that process matters enormously in federal employment disputes. Disability discrimination claims must wind through administrative channels before reaching federal court, and most employment‑related claims belong with the Merit Systems Protection Board rather than in district court.
The case also highlights risks that come with sweeping policy changes affecting accommodations. Whether or not Stewart's allegations hold water, the mere claim that senior officials harbored discriminatory intent when reevaluating remote work arrangements shows how such initiatives can generate litigation headaches.
Stewart's complaint raised questions about revisiting accommodations that employees have relied on for years, particularly remote work setups that became common during the pandemic. While the court never ruled on whether such reevaluations are legal, the allegations underscore the importance of documenting clear, legitimate business reasons for any accommodation changes.
The allegations in the complaint remain untested and unproven, as the court never reached the substance of whether any discriminatory conduct actually occurred.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...