Federal workplace policies are facing a fresh legal test after two attorneys employed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s immigration court system launched a lawsuit alleging that the government’s hardline stance against remote work is unlawfully endangering employees with serious medical conditions.
The case, filed in federal court in Virginia, targets the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency responsible for overseeing the nation’s immigration courts. The plaintiffs contend that the agency has adopted a blanket refusal to permit telework as an accommodation for disabled employees, despite federal laws requiring individualized consideration of such requests.
The lawsuit is being brought by Kimberly Panian and Hoi Yee Baxter, both attorney-advisors within the EOIR. According to the complaint, Panian lives with Type 1 diabetes, while Baxter is undergoing treatment for Stage IV lung cancer. Both attorneys had worked remotely for years and continued to receive favorable performance evaluations while doing so.
Their circumstances changed following the Trump administration’s directive requiring federal employees to return to the office on a full-time basis. The lawsuit alleges that, in implementing the order, EOIR effectively dismantled remote-work arrangements and has since refused to consider telework as a reasonable accommodation for workers with significant health challenges.
The complaint describes severe consequences for both employees. Baxter argues that daily office attendance exposes her to infectious illnesses that could pose life-threatening risks given her condition. Panian, meanwhile, claims she has been forced to rely heavily on leave time to manage her health needs and is nearing the exhaustion of those benefits.
The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, aiming to represent all EOIR employees with disabilities who requested telework accommodations and were denied them since January 2025. Court filings suggest that the proposed class could encompass hundreds of workers.
At the heart of the dispute is the federal Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against federal employees on the basis of disability and requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodations when appropriate. The lawsuit argues that a categorical refusal to allow remote work runs afoul of those obligations because accommodation requests must be evaluated individually rather than rejected under a universal policy.
The challenge arrives amid a broader debate over workplace flexibility across the federal government. Supporters of the administration’s return-to-office push have argued that remote work arrangements were overused after the COVID-19 pandemic and that in-person attendance is necessary to improve accountability and productivity.
However, disability advocates and employment lawyers maintain that telework can be a critical accommodation for workers with serious medical conditions. Earlier this year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cautioned federal agencies that blanket denials of telework requests could expose them to claims under disability discrimination laws.
The Justice Department had not publicly responded to the allegations at the time the lawsuit was filed.
The case, *Panian v. Blanche*, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and could become a significant test of how far federal agencies can go in enforcing return-to-office policies when disability accommodations are at issue.
