| REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
General
In order to make a prima facie showing
of disability discrimination, the appellant must show that he or she is
a disabled person under 29 CFR, section 1614.203 (a), show that the action
appealed is based on the disability, and articulate a reasonable accommodation
by which the appellant could either perform the necessary duties of his
or her position, or be reassigned to a vacant position.
Savage v. Navy, 36 M.S.P.R. 148
(1988)
Miller v. U.S.P.S., 37 M.S.P.R.
473 (1990)
Gillory v. Navy, 50 M.S.P.R., 244
(1991)
Lynch v. Education, 52 M.S.P.R.
541 (1992)
Wilson v. Veterans Affairs, 63 M.S.P.R.
63 (1994)
Jackson v. U.S.P.S., 73 M.S.P.R.
512 (1997)
Spencer v. Navy, 73 M.S.P.R. 15
(1997)
When removing an employee for physical inability
to perform the duties of his position, the agency must show a nexus between
the medical condition and observed deficiencies in the performance or conduct,
or a high probability of hazard that the condition may result in injury
to himself or others.
Schrodt v. U.S.P.S., 79 M.S.P.R.
609 (1998)
Collective bargaining agreement did not relieve
the agency of its obligations to accommodate a disabled employee. The agency
was obligated to identify vacant funded positions in the same commuting
area, or below the employee’s current grade level, to which a disabled
employee could be reassigned.
Jackson v. U.S.P.S., 79 M.S.P.R.
46 (1998)
Medical Documentation
[ TOP ]
The persuasiveness of medical evidence
stems from its explanation of how certain aspects of a particular condition
render the employee unable to perform specific work assignments. For example,
a physician’s conclusion that an employee is disabled must explain how
the medical condition affects the employee’s essential duties of the position
and other specific work requirements. In addition, briefly stated clinical
findings, generalized diagnoses and failure to explain how a condition
causes a particular problem may diminish or entirely eliminate the value
of the medical evidence. A report from a physician who is qualified will
not be discredited because the physician works for the agency who took
the adverse action under appeal.
Witt v. Air Force, 24 M.S.P.R.
31 (1984)
Vaughn v. U.S.P.S., 33 M.S.P.R.
496 (1987)
Bernard v. Office of Personnel Management,
37 M.S.P.R. 486 (1988)
Miller v. U.S.P.S., 43 M.S.P.R.
473 (1990)
Whitmer v. Office of Personnel Management,
48 M.S.P.R. 312 (1991)
Maulding v. Health and Human Services,
961 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1992)
Crew v. Navy, 59 M.S.P.R. 495 (1993)
Frye v. Army, 63 M.S.P.R. 242 (1994)
Brown v. Navy, 65 M.S.P.R. 245 (1994)
Royster v. Office of Personnel Management,
68 M.S.P.R. 655 (1995)
Merzweiler v. U.S.P.S., 69 M.S.P.R.
274 (1996)
Other
[ TOP ]
If a signature is forged (even if the
medical information is correct), a charge of falsification may be sustained
where the employee intentionally submitted it.
Rigilano v. U.S.P.S., 37 M.S.P.R.
614 (1988)
Prior assignment to light duty does not establish
a continuing entitlement to light duty, even when a disabling condition
is permanent An agency is not required to accommodate a disabled employee
by permanently assigning the employee to light duty tasks, when those tasks
do not comprise a complete and separate position.
Bauman v. Navy, 55 M.S.P.R. 209
(1992)
Crew v. Navy, 59 M.S.P.R. 495 (1993)
In considering reassignment as a form of reasonable
accommodation, the agency’s obligation is limited to offering reassignment
to a funded vacant position, inter alia, located within the same commuting
area and serviced by the same appointing authority.
Hurst v. Navy, 61 M.S.P.R. 277
(1994)
Joe v. Navy, 62 M.S.P.R. 408 (1994)
Under the definition of disability, working
is a major life activity and the general foreclosure test applies only
to claims brought under the major life activity of working. Inability to
perform a single, particular job does not constitute substantial limitation.
A substantial limitation means that the appellant is significantly restricted
in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs
in various classes.
Miller v. U.S.P.S., 43 M.S.P.R.
473 (1990)
Groshans v. Navy, 67 M.S.P.R. 629
(1995)
Williams v. Channel Master Satellite
Systems, Inc., 101 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 1996)
Corrigan v. Department of Defense,
1997 WL 177544 (E.DVa), April 10, 1997
|