Lawsuit Claims DOJ Is Retaliating Against Employees with Disabilities Who Request Telework

Why It Matters

The case highlights a clash between federal return‑to‑office mandates and legal obligations to provide reasonable accommodations, exposing agencies to significant liability. A ruling could reshape how government entities handle disability accommodations in a post‑remote‑work era.

Key Takeaways

• DOJ allegedly denied telework as reasonable accommodation for disabled staff
• Plaintiffs experienced demotions, performance penalties after refusing in‑person work
• Lawsuit seeks damages, reinstatement, and agency policy overhaul
• Federal return‑to‑office order may conflict with ADA accommodation duties
• Similar cases suggest broader government scrutiny of telework accommodations

Pulse Analysis

The Justice Department is facing a federal discrimination lawsuit that accuses the agency of systematically refusing telework requests from two disabled employees. Both Joshua Mauldin, a veteran with PTSD, anxiety and cardiac conditions, and IT manager Tarik Smajic, who suffers chronic spinal pain, had successfully teleworked for years before the January 2025 presidential directive that ordered a rapid return to the office. Their subsequent accommodation requests were met with interim arrangements, demotions and performance penalties, which their attorneys argue violated the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA’s reasonable‑accommodation mandate.

The case arrives amid a wave of agency‑wide reviews of remote‑work policies that intensified after the Trump administration’s return‑to‑office mandate. While the order exempts employees with qualifying disabilities, many departments have tightened scrutiny, arguing that telework abuse undermines mission readiness. Legal experts warn that inconsistent application of accommodation standards exposes agencies to costly litigation and damages awards. Moreover, the DOJ’s handling of the Mauldin and Smajic requests could set a precedent for how federal managers balance operational demands with statutory disability obligations.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the DOJ would be compelled to reverse the demotions, award compensatory damages and adopt a transparent telework‑accommodation process. Such a ruling would reinforce the legal weight of the Rehabilitation Act across the civil service, prompting agencies to document decisions, involve medical reviewers and avoid ad‑hoc interim solutions. For employees with disabilities, the lawsuit underscores the importance of formal accommodation requests and the potential recourse when agencies fall short. Stakeholders should monitor the case as it may shape federal telework policy for years to come.