Comment from Anonymous

I am interested in this rule as a prospective probationary federal employee with a disability who may depend on reasonable accommodation to meet legitimate performance standards. I oppose proposed §§ 432.104–432.105 unless the final rule adds independent contemporaneous review. Requiring an employee to continue an improvement period while a disability-related limitation, accommodation request, or materially disputed evaluation remains unresolved risks measuring an unaccommodated disability rather than the employee’s ability to perform essential duties. This risk is especially serious for probationary employees, who may have fewer practical avenues to challenge inaccurate documentation before separation. It also allows the same supervisor to create the disputed record, initiate the improvement process, and judge its outcome. The final rule should require a presumptive 90-day opportunity period; immediate appeal of the initiating evaluation or notice to an independent official outside the supervisory chain; tolling during that review and while accommodation remains pending; concurrent review of the supervisor’s factual accuracy, consistent application of standards, and compliance with disability law; disclosure of supporting evidence; inclusion of the employee’s rebuttal; and a complete opportunity to perform after correction or accommodation. These safeguards would protect disabled and probationary employees from erroneous separation while preserving prompt action based on accurate evidence and legitimate, previously communicated standards.