Workplace Accommodation

EPA's Alternative Workspace Process Requires Greater Managerial Oversight Gao ID: GGD-92-53 March 18, 1992

This report discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to allow one of its headquarters employees to work in her home rather then in her assigned office workspace. Believing that the EPA office environment caused her health problems, this employee had asked to be allowed to work in another location. GAO discusses (1) a grievance that this employee filed because of problems she reportedly experienced while working at home and (2) the adequacy of the internal controls in place for EPA's alternative workspace approval process.

GAO found that: (1) EPA established its AWS policies and procedures in 1988 to allow employees alternative work locations or assignments as an accommodation to their health problems; (2) between November 1988 and November 1991, 34 headquarters employees received approval for AWS as a health-related accommodation, and 18 of those 34 AWS employees were authorized to work in their homes; (3) the EPA headquarters employee who sought AWS through the established approval process reported experiencing health-related problems in her originally assigned office and in two alternative office work locations between July 1990 and November 1990; (4) EPA authorized the employee to work at home beginning in December 1990 and she was still working at home as of late February 1992; (5) in February 1991, the employee filed a grievance concerning various work-related problems, including dissatisfaction with the nature of her work-at-home assignment, lack of access to certain work information, supplies, and computer equipment, and her belief that certain management officials were treating her unfairly; (6) although the employee was still dissatisfied with her treatment by management officials, she elected to withdraw her grievance in May 1991 because she had virtually completed her work assignment on which her grievance had largely been based; and (7) EPA internal controls over AWS are insufficient to protect the government's interests, since AWS administration is dispersed among several offices, there is no overall managerial control or oversight, and documentation and reevaluation requirements are unclear.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.