McFadden v. Department of Defense, 85 M.S.P.R. 18 (1999)
This decision discusses the law under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(5), which allows for a finding that an employee meets the test of being "disabled" if she is "regarded as" having an impairment. The Board held, in this regard, that an appellant who has an impairment that actually "substantially limits" her "major life activities" is not "regarded as" having an impairment under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(5). Thus, her rights and burdens, including those surrounding accommodation, stem from actually being disabled.
 

Bullock v. Department of the Air Force, 88 M.S.P.R. 531 (2001)
This decision adjudicates an allegation of "perceived" discrimination and a general claim of disability discrimination. It applies the most recent Supreme Court precedent on disability discrimination issues and provides a general overview of the subject. Among other points, it finds that the first step in adjudicating a claim of "perceived" disability discrimination is to determine whether the agency mistakenly believed that an actual non-limiting impairment substantially limited one or more of the appellant’s major life activities. Further, it states that to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular job of choice, so that a situational limitation involving one particular location and supervisor does not meet the test.
 

Carter v. Department of Justice, 88 M.S.P.R. 641 (2001)
This case addresses many of the same issues as in Bullock, immediately above. The decision holds that the fact that an employee was terminated as a result of his medical condition is not sufficient to establish that the employer regarded him as substantially impaired in the life activity of working. It sets out the test for qualifying as disabled under the "regarded as" definition. An employee qualifies as disabled under the "regarded as" definition when: (1) An employer mistakenly believes that he has an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; or (2) an employer mistakenly believes that an actual, non-limiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. Thus, an employee who is merely regarded as disabled does not need an accommodation. Decisions holding that an appellant can establish that the agency regarded him as substantially limited in working without showing that it viewed him as foreclosed from performing jobs in his geographical area open to the average person having his comparable training, skills, and abilities in his geographical area, were overruled. The proof needed to show disability based on a record of an impairment was also restated. Specifically, under 29 CFR 1630.2(k), an employee satisfies this definition of disability if he "has a history of, or has been mis-classified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." As with the "regarded as" definition, the appellant’s removal for inability to do his job does not prove that claim.
 

Alhilawi v Interior, 88 MSPR 360, April 25, 2001.  Appellant’s removal for conviction of a misdemeanor (stalking) was sustained since the appellant failed to establish disparate treatment.  Specifically, the appellant failed to prove he was similarly situated with comparative employees who were convicted of misdemeanors and who were not removed.
 

Bullock v Air Force, 88 MSPR 531, June 7, 2001.  The Board found that the first step in adjudicating a claim of perceived disability discrimination is to determine whether the agency mistakenly believe that an actual non-limiting impairment substantially limited one or more of the appellant’s major life activities.  Further, the Board stated that to be substantially limited in the major like activity of working, one must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular job of choice, so that a situational limitation involving one particular location and supervisor does not meet the test.  See also Carter v. Department of Justice, 88 MSPR 641, June 25,2001.
 

Tan-Gatue v. OPM, 90 MSPR. 116, August 23, 2001.  An applicant for disability retirement must establish that she is unable to perform her assigned duties since proof of stress, anxiety, and discomfort at work is not enough by itself to establish disability.

Bracey v. Office of Personnel Management, 236 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
DISABILITY
Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provide two ways for an agency to retain a disabled Federal employee: (1) assign the employee to an established vacant position at the same grade and pay; (2) accommodate the employee’s disability in a way that enables the employee to perform the duties of his official position. However, a Federal employee is not disqualified for disability benefits under OPM regulations by virtue of his being given light-duty assignments in the same position.
 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc, U.S. Supreme Court No. 99-1823, January 15, 2002.  Despite the fact that the employee had signed an agreement to submit all employment disputes to binding arbitration, the Court held that under the ADA and the 1991 amendments to the Title VII, EEOC has the expressed statutory authority to seek both injunctive and victim-specific relief.  Although the agency policy favors arbitration, that arbitration cannot be compelled because EEOC is not a party to the employment agreement between the complainant and the respondent. 
 

Toyota v Williams, Supreme Court No. 00-1089, January 8, 2002,  the Supreme Court narrows the definition of a "qualified disabled person" under the ADA.   Specifically, the Court examined the proper standard for assessing whether the worker had been substantially limited in any major life activities.  It concluded that the key issue was whether the worker's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of "central importance to most people's daily lives."  It found that the Circuit Court had instead focused on her ability to perform a limited class of manual tasks associated with her specific job.  The Court concluded that the employee's impairments, although limiting her ability to perform certain work related tasks, did not prevent her from preparing meals, bathing, doing laundry and other household chores.