Karin A. Coe, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appeal No. 01A20972, August 12, 2003

The agency subjected the complainant to disability discrimination when, instead of making a determination whether her knee condition could be accommodated so that she could remain in her present position, it reassigned her to another facility without engaging in the required interactive process. After she requested an accommodation for her knee condition, the agency had a duty to work with the complainant to find a mutually acceptable solution. Although reassignment is supposed to be an accommodation of last resort, the agency immediately reassigned the complainant to an unwanted position without establishing the ramp and schedule change she requested would be an undue hardship.

The complainant was employed as a Distribution Clerk at the agency's Processing and Distribution Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. She sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the bases of race and disability when she was instructed to report to another pay location and was moved to the agency's Indianapolis Plant facility due to her medical restrictions.

The complainant's physician stated that she could not perform the full duties of her position, but could perform light duty as a permanent restriction. The agency's Greater Indiana District Medical Officer came to the conclusion that complainant's restrictions were permanent. As a result, the complainant sought the reasonable accommodation of a having a ramp built so she could perform her duties on a Small Bundle Sorting Machine (SBSM) without having to climb steps. However, the facility's Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO) stated that one or more than one ramps could not be built on all SBSM locations because the Acting Facility Manager (AFM) had informed her that the proposed ramps would pose a safety hazard to other employees. The complainant had also been moved to a Priority Mail facility, where she could perform duties separating priority mail, which were within her medical restrictions.

In order to address the complainant's allegation of disability discrimination, the Commission stated that to establish her claim, the complainant must first establish that she is an "individual with a disability" within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. An "individual with a disability" is a person who (1) has, (2) has a record of, or (3) is regarded as having a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities. Based on the complainant's condition substantially limiting her in the major activity of climbing, the Commission found that she was "an individual with a disability."

The complainant was also required to show that she was a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(m). The term "qualified individual with a disability" is defined as an individual with a disability who, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired. The evidence demonstrated that the complainant could perform the essential functions of the Distribution Clerk position with the accommodation of a ramp on the SBSM machine so she would not have to climb stairs. Therefore, the Commission found that the Complainant was a "qualified individual with a disability."

Under the Rehabilitation Act, the agency is obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for any limitations resulting from a disability. The limitation which is the basis for the accommodation request need not itself be substantially limiting. As long as the limitation is a consequence of a disability covered under the Rehabilitation Act, the request must be granted by the agency, absent a showing of undue hardship.

In complainant's case, the record clearly demonstrated that her climbing restriction was a consequence of her disability. Because the agency was unable to show undue hardship, the Commission found the agency was obligated to provide the complainant with a reasonable accommodation.

The agency responded by denying complainant's requests, citing safety concerns, and by reassigning her twice to positions within her medical restrictions, but apparently at undesirable locations. The Commission has held that reassignment is the accommodation of last resort, and should be employed only after it has been determined that: (1) there are no effective accommodations that would allow the employee to perform the essential functions of her position, or (2) all other reasonable accommodations would impose an undue hardship.

The Commission found that the agency did not engage in the interactive process with complainant to find a mutually acceptable accommodation, as set forth in the Commission's Enforcement Guidance. It also found that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide evidence that complainant's requested accommodations of at least one SBSM ramp or schedule change posed an undue hardship.

Finally, the Commission found that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to demonstrate that complainant's requests for accommodation posed an undue hardship based on safety or prevented other employees from doing their jobs.

The agency was ordered to give the complainant the opportunity to return to an assignment as a Distribution Clerk at the Indianapolis, Indiana Processing and Distribution Center after participating in an interactive process with complainant to determine whether there was an accommodation which would allow her to perform her assigned work without an undue hardship.

Although reassignment is supposed to be an accommodation of last resort, agencies are reminded that they are required to engage in the interactive process to determine whether an employee can be accommodated in his/her current position before considering reassignment. Further, it is also important for agencies to be able to articulate specific reasons why a requested accommodation would be an undue hardship. Otherwise, an agency will face a finding of disability discrimination.