Class Action Says State Department Medical Clearance Office Shuts Disabled Federal Workers Out of Overseas Posts at 25-Plus Agencies
Three current and former federal employees filed a class action in federal court in Washington on Tuesday accusing the State Department's medical office of shutting people with disabilities out of overseas government jobs, not only at State but at the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and more than two dozen other agencies that rely on its clearance decisions.
The suit, Doe A v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-03574, was filed Oct. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his official capacity. It is brought under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which bars disability discrimination by federal agencies, and demands a jury trial. The plaintiffs, who sue as Jane Doe A, John Doe A and John Doe B, are represented by Bryan Schwartz Law of Oakland, California, and Nichols Kaster of Minneapolis. TDFP found no prior public reporting of the filing as of Thursday.
ONE STATE DEPARTMENT MEDICAL CLEARANCE OFFICE, MORE THAN 25 AGENCIES
At the center of the complaint is the State Department's Bureau of Medical Services, known as MED, which decides whether Americans are medically cleared to serve abroad. According to the complaint, MED "determines medical clearances for not only State Department employees, but also for more than 25 other federal agencies," including USAID, the Foreign Agricultural Service, DHS, DOJ and the FBI, and it "conducts thousands of medical clearance evaluations" a year. Those decisions, the complaint says, are made "by a small core of MED employees, typically 10 to 20 nurse consultants, overseen by several doctors and administrators."
The suit targets a specific step in that system. Employees with a medical condition receive a "Class 2," or post-specific, clearance and must get MED's approval for each individual post. The complaint alleges that MED denies those approvals "based solely on conjectured symptoms, and/or treatment requirements of their diagnoses," without the individualized assessment the law requires, and that hiring agencies then act on the denial with no review of their own. "Rejection of a candidate denied worldwide or post-specific medical clearance is automatic," the complaint says. It adds that MED's nurse consultants "do not necessarily speak with the employees or their medical providers," and that the department's separate reasonable-accommodation office "does not communicate with MED in the post-approval process."
A WAR ZONE, BODY ARMOR AND A CANCER DIAGNOSIS
The lead plaintiff, Jane Doe A, is a 55-year-old woman with cerebral palsy who, the complaint says, had worked in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, the Philippines and Vietnam and holds a master's degree in international development. In February 2011, she was offered a USAID Foreign Service Limited position in Kabul, contingent on medical clearance. The complaint alleges MED denied her post approval, concluding she "cannot be approved for any war zones" and would struggle to "wear the required body armor of at least 40 pounds," without any test of that skill or any discussion with her or her doctors. USAID then rescinded the offer.
John Doe A, 48, joined the Foreign Service in 2017 as a Diplomatic Security specialist with a "worldwide available" Class 1 clearance and was posted to Khartoum, Sudan, in 2019. After he was diagnosed with arthritis and submitted updated medical records, the complaint says, he was pulled from Sudan within three weeks and downgraded to Class 2.
John Doe B, 43, joined the Foreign Service in 2006. After a 2015 diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma, the complaint says, MED denied him Class 1 clearance and he was allowed to work only domestically; in 2019 he was denied post-specific clearance for Algiers, Baku, Cairo, Casablanca, Rabat and Tunis. He now works in Taipei.
The stakes go beyond a single posting, the complaint says. "High threat" assignments carry "hardship and danger pay boosts of up to 35%" and are "viewed favorably by promotion and tenure committees," and Foreign Service officers who are not promoted "are eventually forced out of federal service."
FIFTEEN YEARS AT THE EEOC
The case did not start this week. According to the complaint, Jane Doe A first contacted an EEO counselor on June 30, 2011, and filed a class complaint that September. An EEOC administrative judge certified the class in 2022; the State Department rejected that order in a final agency decision and appealed. On Aug. 6, 2026, the complaint says, the EEOC decertified and dismissed the class action and gave the plaintiffs 90 days to sue in federal court. Along the way, a judge ordered the department to produce redacted medical records for a sample of affected employees, and the department turned over records of "roughly 300 individuals" who fit the proposed class, the complaint says.
"The State Department has had fifteen years to reconsider and address the discriminatory policies and practices alleged in this case, and it has failed to do so," the complaint says.
The new suit follows an earlier class case over a different State Department clearance rule. In January 2023, the department announced a $37.5 million settlement of Meyer v. U.S. Department of State, which challenged its requirement that career Foreign Service applicants obtain a Class 1 clearance; the department said the deal resolved the claims of more than 230 people and that it would adopt a revised minimum medical standard. The Doe A complaint says Jane Doe A tried to join that case at the EEOC and was turned down in 2013 because Meyer covered Class 1 denials, while her case covers denials of post-specific approval.
WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS WANT
The proposed class covers all applicants for federal employment overseas who were denied post-specific clearance from May 16, 2011, to the present, a group the complaint puts at "at least hundreds" of people. The plaintiffs ask for damages, a declaration that the department's clearance practices violate the Rehabilitation Act, an injunction requiring "policy changes and staff training," and a chance for class members to have their offers reinstated or their clearances reconsidered "based on a nondiscriminatory evaluation of their current health."
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court, and the government has not yet filed a response.
The State Department declined to comment, telling TDFP it does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation. Bryan Schwartz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, did not respond to TDFP's interview request by deadline.
Sources: Class action complaint, Doe A v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-03574 (D.D.C., filed Oct. 13, 2026), via CourtListener; U.S. Department of State media note on the Meyer settlement (Jan. 17, 2023), state.gov; State Department spokesperson, on background, Oct. 15, 2026. Cover photo: U.S. Department of State, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Comments