The interesting part of this post is what a proper denial of reasonable accommodation request looks like, so that if you did not receive a proper denial, or no denial at all via totally ignoring your request, than you know something is wrong. Also, if no report of investigation was done, and no notice of rights were given, than the proper procedures for a reasonable accommodation were not done correctly.
1. Her request for a reasonable accommodation was denied.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
Regarding the denial of reasonable accommodation,
the agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of disability discrimination because she failed to establish that
she was substantially limited in a major life activity and hence failed
to establish that she had a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
Finally, the agency found that, assuming arguendo complainant did have
a disability under the appropriate regulations, the agency was unable
to accommodate her because there were no available positions during the
day shift that satisfied her restrictions.
As regards denial of reasonable accommodation, we note that EEOC
regulations require the agency to “make reasonable accommodation
to the known physical and mental limitations” of qualified disabled
employees unless the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would
impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.203(c)(3). In reassignment cases, such as this one, complainant has
an additional evidentiary burden. Complainant must present sufficient
evidence to support a finding that, more likely than not, there was
a vacant, funded position, for which she was qualified and to which
she could have been reassigned. See Barnard v. United States Postal
Service., EEOC Appeal No. 07A10002 (Aug. 2, 2002). Absent evidence of
a particular vacant, funded position, the fact that a vacant, funded
position existed may be inferred based on documentary or testimonial
evidence regarding, inter alia, (1) complainant’s qualifications; (2)
the size of the agency’s workforce; and (3) indicia of postings and/or
selections during the pertinent time period within classes of jobs for
which complainant would have been qualified.
