The holidays ended. My questions from December 20 were still unanswered.
I had asked in writing whether the order not to contact anyone at the agency covered HR and the ADA coordinator, and if it did, how I was supposed to request accommodations. Nobody replied. I still didn’t have the fitness-for-duty requirements I was supposed to meet to go back to work.
So on January 5, 2026, I asked again.
January 5: Asking Again
That day, I called the person I had been told was the agency’s ADA compliance officer. He turned out to be the former one. When I told him what had happened, and that I had filed an EEOC complaint, he told me I never should have filed it. I should have talked to someone else at the agency.
Someone else. After three and a half years of reporting to HR, to supervisors, and to the regional office.
That evening, at 6:23 p.m., I emailed HR at the regional office. I asked for four things: the fitness-for-duty form, instructions for completing it, who to return it to, and any deadlines. I said I was asking so I could fully understand and comply with the agency’s requirements.
How is an employee supposed to meet a requirement when no one will give him the requirement?
January 6: The Answer
The next day, the Region Engineer wrote to me.
It said I had contacted two agency employees, the regional HR contact and the former ADA officer, in violation of his directive. It said he was disappointed that I “chose to be insubordinate.” And it said my “continued behavior of not following directives will be addressed upon your return to work.”
The letter says the directive came in “my last letter dated December 22, 2025.” I never received a December 22 letter.
To be fair, the December 16 letter I received on December 20 did say to direct questions to the Region Engineer or his assistant. That is exactly why, on December 20, I asked in writing whether HR and the ADA coordinator counted. Nobody answered that question. The next thing I heard was that asking had made me insubordinate.
Since when is asking HR for ADA forms insubordination?
“No Particular Form Is Required”
Here’s what makes that letter hard to believe. In the same letter that called me insubordinate for asking, the Region Engineer answered my question.
He wrote that my healthcare provider only needed to show that I was no longer a threat to myself, that the information could be provided in whatever format worked best for the provider, and that no particular form was required.
Compare that to the December 16 letter. That one demanded a letter from a licensed psychiatrist or mental health professional stating I was not a threat to myself or others, that I could perform all the essential functions of my job, and that referenced the agency’s own list of claims about me.
Three weeks later, the requirement had shrunk to a single question, in any format. And that won’t be the last version. By March, the agency would reject what my therapist sent. And my termination letter would claim I never turned in a fitness-for-duty form at all.
Which version of the requirement was real? And if the rules kept changing, how was anyone supposed to meet them?
What Is the ADA Interactive Process?
The ADA interactive process is the good faith back and forth between an employer and an employee to understand the employee’s limitations and find accommodations that let him do the job. The employer is expected to take part in it, not block it.
Good faith generally looks like:
- Responding to the employee’s questions and requests in a reasonable time
- Explaining clearly what medical information is needed, and why
- Giving the employee a way to communicate, not cutting that way off
- Keeping medical information confidential
The EEOC explains your rights under the ADA at eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.
One Door, and He Was Holding It
By January 6, I was allowed to talk to exactly two people at the agency: the Region Engineer and his assistant. The Region Engineer was the man who had signed the December 16 letter, five days after I told his region’s HR contact about my EEOC investigation.
I told my attorney at the time. On January 16, he told me the agency’s attorney had said the two lawyers would handle it from there. I was not to respond to the Region Engineer. Anything that came in, I was to send to my attorney.
So I did exactly that.
When the only person you’re allowed to ask for help is the person who put you on leave, what does the “interactive” in interactive process really mean?
On Monday, I’ll post the next entry in this series: “Canceled Before I Was Told.”
The record continues.
About this record: The events in The Foundation are documented in dated records and are consistent with statements I have given under penalty of perjury to the EEOC. Names are withheld; job titles are used instead. Commentary and opinions are my own.
For journalists, researchers, and advocates: If you are covering workplace bullying or public-employee accountability and need documentation or more detail, contact me at 9IX@9inthman.com.
Leave a Reply