Federal employees sometimes assume that once they request a reasonable accommodation, their agency cannot remove them. Unfortunately, the issue is more complicated.

A reasonable accommodation request can provide important legal protection, but it does not automatically stop an agency from proposing removal, placing an employee on a Performance Improvement Plan, charging failure to meet a condition of employment, or claiming medical inability to perform. The real question is whether the agency handled the accommodation issue lawfully before taking action.

For federal employees, this can become a critical MSPB, EEOC, or mixed-case issue.

The Short Answer

Yes, a federal agency may attempt to remove an employee even after the employee requests reasonable accommodation. But the agency must still comply with the Rehabilitation Act, civil service due process rules, and any applicable MSPB standards.

That means the agency usually must consider whether the employee is a qualified individual with a disability, whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with accommodation, whether reassignment is required, and whether the proposed reason for removal is actually connected to the employee’s disability or accommodation request.

If the agency skips those steps, rushes the removal, ignores medical documentation, fails to engage in the interactive process, or treats the accommodation request as a nuisance, the employee may have strong defenses.

Common Removal Theories After a Medical or Accommodation Issue

Federal agencies often use several different labels in these cases. The label matters because each theory has different proof requirements and different defenses.

1. Medical Inability to Perform

A medical inability removal usually means the agency claims the employee cannot perform the essential duties of the position because of a medical condition.

But the agency should not simply say: “You have medical limitations, therefore you cannot do the job.” The proper question is whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

Important defense questions include:

• Did the agency identify the actual essential functions of the position?
• Did the agency consider the employee’s medical documentation?
• Did the agency engage in the interactive process?
• Did the agency consider telework, modified duties, schedule changes, leave, assistive technology, or reassignment?
• Did the agency rely on assumptions instead of actual evidence?
• Did the agency confuse temporary limitations with permanent inability?

A medical condition does not automatically make a federal employee removable. The agency must connect the medical issue to the actual duties of the job and must consider lawful accommodation options.

2. Failure to Meet a Condition of Employment

Some federal jobs require employees to maintain a license, certification, medical clearance, security clearance, physical ability standard, training requirement, or other condition of employment.

Examples may include:

• Law enforcement fitness or academy requirements
• Medical certifications
• Driver’s license requirements
• Professional licenses
• Security clearance requirements
• Mandatory training requirements
• Credentialing requirements

These cases can look straightforward, but they often are not. The agency still must prove that the requirement is actually a condition of employment, that the employee failed to meet it, and that removal is appropriate.

If the employee requested accommodation, additional questions arise:

• Was the requirement truly essential?
• Was the standard applied consistently?
• Was the employee denied a reasonable modification?
• Was the employee given a fair opportunity to meet the requirement?
• Did the agency consider whether the condition could be met with accommodation?
• Did the agency treat similarly situated employees differently?
• Was the timing suspicious after an accommodation request, EEO activity, injury, or protected disclosure?

A failure-to-meet-condition case should not be accepted at face value. The actual position description, policy language, medical evidence, agency practice, and accommodation history all matter.

3. Performance-Based Removal or PIP

Agencies also sometimes respond to medical limitations or accommodation requests by placing the employee on a Performance Improvement Plan.

A PIP can be lawful, but it can also be misused. If the performance problems are tied to a medical condition or the denial of accommodation, the employee may have important defenses.

For example, if an employee requests telework, medical leave, modified duties, assistive software, or a schedule adjustment, and the agency denies or delays the request, the agency may have difficulty blaming the employee for performance problems caused by the lack of accommodation.

Important questions include:

• Did the performance problems begin after a new medical restriction or accommodation request?
• Did the agency provide the tools, training, time, and support needed to succeed?
• Were the performance standards clear and objective?
• Was the PIP realistic?
• Did the agency consider accommodation before judging performance?
• Did the supervisor use the PIP as a paper trail for removal?

In federal employment cases, timing matters. A sudden PIP after an accommodation request can raise issues of disability discrimination, reprisal, or pretext.

The Interactive Process Matters

The reasonable accommodation process is supposed to be individualized. The agency should communicate with the employee, review relevant medical information, evaluate possible accommodations, and consider effective options.

The agency does not have to provide the exact accommodation the employee prefers if another effective accommodation exists. But the agency cannot simply ignore the request, delay indefinitely, reject the request without analysis, or require the employee to perform without accommodation and then discipline the employee for struggling.

The interactive process often becomes a central factual issue in MSPB and EEOC cases.

Reassignment May Be Required

Many federal employees do not realize that reassignment can be a reasonable accommodation of last resort.

If an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the current position even with accommodation, the agency may need to consider reassignment to a vacant funded position for which the employee is qualified.

This issue is often overlooked. Agencies sometimes move directly from “you cannot perform this job” to “you are removed.” In some cases, that may be legally defective if reassignment was not properly considered.

MSPB, EEOC, or Both?

These cases can fall into more than one legal forum.

A removal, demotion, or suspension of more than 14 days may be appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board if the employee has MSPB appeal rights. If the employee claims the action was based on disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or reprisal for EEO activity, the case may become a “mixed case.”

That means the employee may have both civil service and discrimination claims arising from the same action.

This is one reason it is important to speak with counsel quickly. Choosing the wrong forum, missing a deadline, or filing in the wrong place can create unnecessary complications.

Deadlines Are Short

Federal employees should act quickly when facing accommodation-related discipline or removal.

Important deadlines may include:

• 45 days to contact an EEO counselor for discrimination or retaliation claims
• 30 days to file a chapters 43 or 75 MSPB appeal after an appealable adverse action
• Short internal deadlines to respond to a proposed removal, suspension, demotion, or PIP
• Agency-specific reasonable accommodation reconsideration deadlines

Even if a deadline may have passed, employees should still seek advice immediately. There may be arguments involving timeliness, continuing violations, mixed cases, defective notice, equitable tolling, or related claims.

What Federal Employees Should Save

If you are facing removal after a medical issue or accommodation request, save the documents immediately. Important records may include:

• The accommodation request
• Medical documentation
• Agency RA emails
• Denial letters
• Proposed removal or proposed discipline
• PIP documents
• Position description
• Performance standards
• Fitness, training, credentialing, or condition-of-employment policy
• Emails with supervisors
• Comparator information
• Time and attendance records
• Medical leave records
• Prior performance ratings
• Awards or commendations
• Any evidence of hostile comments about your disability, medical restrictions, telework, leave, or accommodation request

Do not rely on the agency to preserve everything you may need.

Practical Defense Themes

In many cases, the strongest defense is not simply “I have a disability.” The stronger defense is usually more specific:

• The agency failed to engage in the interactive process.
• The agency ignored effective accommodations.
• The agency failed to consider reassignment.
• The agency relied on assumptions instead of medical evidence.
• The agency treated the employee differently after protected activity.
• The agency used a PIP or condition-of-employment theory to avoid its accommodation obligations.
• The agency rushed the action.
• The agency failed to prove the actual charge.
• The penalty was excessive under the Douglas factors.
• The deciding official did not fairly consider the employee’s reply and mitigating evidence.

The exact defense depends on the charge, forum, evidence, and procedural history.

Bottom Line

A federal employee can be removed after requesting reasonable accommodation, but the agency does not get a free pass. The agency must still prove its case, follow required procedures, consider reasonable accommodation, and justify the penalty.

If you are a federal employee facing a proposed removal, PIP, failure-to-meet-condition charge, medical inability removal, or accommodation denial, you should act quickly. These cases often involve overlapping MSPB, EEOC, Rehabilitation Act, and civil service issues.

Levine Federal Law represents federal employees nationwide in MSPB appeals, proposed removals, performance cases, reasonable accommodation matters, disability discrimination claims, and federal-sector EEO cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a federal agency remove me because of my medical condition?

Not simply because you have a medical condition. The agency must consider whether you can perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodation. If you cannot perform your current job, reassignment may need to be considered.

Does a reasonable accommodation request stop a removal?

Not automatically. But the agency must handle the accommodation request lawfully. If the agency ignores the request, delays the process, or removes you because you requested accommodation, you may have legal claims.

Can I file both an MSPB appeal and an EEO complaint?

Sometimes. If you are removed, demoted, or suspended for more than 14 days and you claim disability discrimination or failure to accommodate, your case may be a mixed case. Forum selection can be important, so you should get advice quickly.

What if I failed a fitness test, academy requirement, or medical clearance?

The agency may claim you failed to meet a condition of employment. But the agency still must prove the requirement, apply it lawfully, and consider whether reasonable accommodation issues are involved.

What should I do if I receive a proposed removal?

Do not wait. Review the evidence file, preserve your documents, identify deadlines, and prepare a careful written and/or oral reply. What you say in the reply can affect both the agency decision and any later MSPB or EEOC case.