agency manager thinks all fat people have diabetes
Further, the Postmaster specifically admitted that she applied her past
experience with another employee to complainant’s situation. She stated
that because that prior employee turned out to have diabetes, she ordered
the FFD for complainant’s protection and the protection of the agency.
This is persuasive evidence that the decision to order the FFD was not
made based on objective evidence concerning complainant, and was instead
made based on the Postmaster’s assumptions about his condition because
of her past experience. Finally, we recognize that as a result of the
examination, some restrictions were placed on complainant. However,
the FAD specifically states that the restrictions (no climbing ladders,
no repetitive bending or stooping) were due to the fact that complainant
twisted his knee on March 27, 2004 (five days after the FFD examination
was ordered, but before the examination actually occurred on April 7,
2004). Although the record indicates that the twisted knee occurred
because complainant did not select the proper size ladder for his weight,
there is still no indication that complainant was unable to perform the
essential functions of his job. This simply indicates that complainant
ought to have used a different size ladder to complete the task at hand.
In sum, we find that the evidence contained in this record simply does
not support that the FFD examination in question was job-related and
consistent with business necessity.
ref:
Clifton W. Crawford,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200611351
Agency No. 4F-926-0201-04
