The precedent for a manager requesting documentation that the complainant is “fit for duty” proves knowledge of the disability. I don’t know if a nurse can dismiss medical documentation if not signed by a medical doctor, but that aspect was immaterial, even if it was wrong. If the physician’s medical document states work restrictions, and they are not followed by the agency, then a discrimination by denial of physician requested accommodation has also been violated.
As with any disability, you must first prove you have a disability, and even more important than that, is to make sure you submit all paperwork to EEOC within time limit, or your case is over.
The record contains a copy of ELM Sections 865.2 “Other Required
Certification” and 865.3 “Contents of Certification.” Therein, Section
865.2 provides that “employees returning to duty after an absence for
communicable or contagious diseases, mental and nervous conditions,
diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or seizure disorders or following
hospitalization must submit a physician’s statement doing one of the
following: (a). Stating unequivocally that the employee is fit for full
duties without hazard to him or herself or others. (b). Indicating the
restrictions that should be considered for accommodation before return
to duty…”
Further, Section 865.3 provides that “all medical certifications must
be detailed medical documentation and not simply a statement of ability
to return to work. There must be sufficient information to make a
determination that the employee can return to work without hazard to
self or others.”
Regarding claim (3), S1 stated that on March 15, 2003, complainant
submitted his medical documentation “but because the nurse was not on duty
on Saturday he was sent home by [Supervisor] until the nurse returned
on Monday.” S1 further stated that on March 17, 2003, complainant’s
documentation was “originally denied by the OHNA nurse because it
was not signed by his attending physician but rather a PA.” S1 stated
after further consideration the nurse contacted SM and informed her that
complainant was cleared to return to duty. S1 stated that SM attempted
to contact complainant to notify him that he was cleared to return to
duty in the afternoon of March 17, 2003 but was unable to reach him.
Further, S1 stated that during the relevant time, complainant was
placed in a non-paid status. S1 further stated that complainant filed
a grievance concerning the March 15 and 17, 2003 incidents, and “was
re-credited annual leave with no loss of pay.”
The record further reflects that SM stated that because the nurse does
not work on Saturdays, complainant was not allowed to work on March
15, 2003. SM stated that she faxed complainant’s documentation to the
nurse; and that the nurse called her stating that the documentation
was not signed by a doctor “and she could not accept it.” SM stated
that after she explained to complainant why his documentation was not
accepted, she contacted the Manager of Human Resources “and asked him
to talk to the nurse to determine what we needed to do from there.”
SM stated that the Manager of Human Resources later called her and
informed her that complainant was cleared to return to work. SM stated
“I attempted to contact the complainant, but could not get a hold of him.”
SM stated that she then asked the union steward to contact complainant.
The record further reflects that during his testimony, complainant
acknowledged he was paid for the period of March 15, 2003 to March 17,
2003.
