Full Breakdown
Court Blocks DOJ Telework Ban for Disabled Immigration Attorneys
7/13/2026, 8:50:49 PM
Court Order Halts “No-Telework” Policy
On July 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles (Eastern District of Virginia) issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily bars the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) from denying telework accommodations to two disabled federal immigration attorney-advisers. Kimberly Panian, an attorney at the Otay Mesa Immigration Court in San Diego, and Hoi Yee Baxter, an EOIR attorney in Texas, argued that the agency’s “no-telework” rule forces them to work on-site despite severe health conditions, violating the Rehabilitation Act’s Section 501. The injunction remains in effect while the lawsuit proceeds.
Policy Origin and Legal Basis
The EOIR’s telework restriction was adopted after President Donald Trump’s 2021 executive order directing federal employees to return to their offices full-time. Agencies subsequently denied remote-work requests that had previously been treated as reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Panian and Baxter contend that the policy disregards their medical needs—Panian’s Type I diabetes and migraine-related stroke symptoms, and Baxter’s Stage IV lung cancer and immunocompromised status—thereby endangering their health and jeopardizing their eligibility for health insurance.
Plaintiffs and Stakeholders
- Kimberly Panian – Immigration attorney-adviser, Otay Mesa Immigration Court, San Diego; disabilities include Type I diabetes and severe migraines.
- Hoi Yee Baxter – Immigration attorney-adviser, EOIR, Texas; undergoing treatment for Stage IV lung cancer.
- Anashua Duttam – Attorney at Democracy Forward, representing the plaintiffs.
- Kathryn Mattingly – EOIR spokesperson, declined comment on the litigation.
Official Statements & Responses
The Justice Department, through EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly, declined to comment on the pending case. Democracy Forward’s attorney Anashua Duttam said, “This decision reaffirms that disability rights cannot be cast aside by arbitrary government decisions.”
Criticism & Opposition
Disability-rights advocates argue the EOIR’s blanket denial of telework conflicts with the Rehabilitation Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless it causes undue hardship. The plaintiffs seek class-wide relief for “hundreds of employees” similarly denied telework, emphasizing that the policy “forces them to work in person in order to maintain their livelihoods and health insurance.”
The injunction underscores ongoing legal battles over federal telework policies and the extent of accommodations required for employees with serious health conditions.
