|
How do you pursue disability discrimination in EEO, EEOC, or in court, and how do you know
what's covered, and what is considered disability? How does class action work? This
discussion is for information purposes and is not intended to substitute for legal counsel
or medical advice.
This suggests how to frame the issues by linking fact situations which may occur in
limited duty or other situations, with provisions of the law that are actionable in EEO,
EEOC, and following up in Federal courts. This discussion concerns the link between the
provisions in 1614.203 Part 5 and the precedent in Miller vs. U.S.P.S. in EEOC Digest, all
excerpts below.
See Part 1614.203 on the applicability of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. That part outlaws discrimination by perception of handicap, for example, limiting
a person's hours without medical justification, or refusing promotion because of some
limitation that does not prevent the individual from doing the particular job (with or
without accommodations).
Case law from EEOC Digest is reproduced here also, relating to
disability discrimination.
In 1614.203 it says it
covers situations where a person is treated as handicapped when they're not, or more
handicapped than they are; and it covers situations where the impairment is only as a
result of the employers attitude toward it, or no impairment exists but the employer acts
as if it does exist. This section also mandates "reasonable accommodation" to
handicaps as broadly defined here, and requires "full consideration to the hiring,
placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with mental and physical
handicaps" (b).
§ 1614.203 Rehabilitation Act
http://www.gsa.gov/eeo/cfr1614m.htm(a) Definitions.
(1) "Individual with handicap(s)" is
defined for this section as one who: (i) has a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (ii) has a record
of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.
(2) "Physical or mental impairment"
means: (i) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical
loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: Neurological, musculoskeletal,
special sense organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, respiratory,
genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine, or (ii) any mental or
psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or
mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.
(3) "Major life activities" means
functions, such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing,
hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
(4) "Has a record of such an impairment"
means has a history of, or has been classified (or misclassified) as having, a mental or
physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
(5) "Is regarded as having such an
impairment" means has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially
limit major life activities but is treated by an employer as constituting such a
limitation; has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life
activities only as a result of the attitude of an employer toward such impairment; or has
none of the impairments defined in (2) of this section but is treated by an employer as
having such an impairment.
(6) "Qualified individual with handicaps"
means with respect to employment, an individual with handicaps who, with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position in question
without endangering the health and safety of the individual or others and who, depending
upon the type of appointing authority being used:
(i) meets the experience or education requirements
(which may include passing a written test) of the position in question, or
(ii) meets the criteria for appointment under one
of the special appointing authorities for individuals with handicaps |
| EEOC Digest from March 1994 VIII
COMMISSION FINDS THAT AGENCY BASED PERSONNEL DECISION ON UNLAWFUL STEREOTYPE OF INDIVIDUAL
WITH CEREBRAL PALSY
Miller v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930398
(October 22, 1993).
The appellant alleged in his complaint that the
agency discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability by continuously
denying his request to work more than four hours per day. He suffered from a mild case of
cerebral palsy. He worked as a mail handler, the essential functions of which included
reading labels, transporting mail, and handling heavy equipment. The agency concluded that
the appellant's motor skills were too deficient to enable him to perform in the position
for more than four hours per day.
The record established that the appellant had a
disability which caused him difficulties in walking and impaired his manual dexterity. The
record also established that the appellant was physically capable of working for at least
eight hours in a workday.
The Commission found no evidence of medical
restrictions. It also found that the appellant's performance had consistently been above
average. The Commission found persuasive a statement from the appellant's immediate
supervisor that he had an excellent safety and attendance record. It determined that the
agency never gave the appellant the opportunity to demonstrate that he could work longer
than four hours per day, or otherwise inquired as to what restrictions the appellant
should be placed under. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the agency had
discriminated against the appellant and ordered that he be given additional working hours
and awarded back pay. |
|
