what does a reasonable accommodation look like?
In the instant case, we decline to find that
the agency failed to meet its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.
We note that complainant requested accommodation due to her diabetes and
the panic and anxiety (depression) which occurred when she was assigned
Title XVI duties. We find that the agency offered her a reasonable
accommodation when it offered her several positions within her medical
restrictions, but she rejected all of them. The record reveals that in
August 2002, the agency offered her a part time position in the Lawrence
District Office, limiting her assignments. The agency also offered
complainant a limited duty assignment on February 7, 2003 and on April
16, 2003, the agency provided complainant with a revised job offer.
The revised job offer was for a Claims Representative, GS-11, in the
Haverhill District Office, which limited complainant to Title II claims
until her physician medically cleared her to assume a full workload, but
complainant again rejected the job offer. Although the record indicates
that complainant preferred to be reassigned to Boston, she has not
shown that the positions offered to her as a reasonable accommodation
were ineffective. We remind complainant that she is not entitled to
the accommodation of her choice. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, question 9 (October 1, 2002) (“The employer may choose
among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation
is effective.”). Nor has complainant shown that there was a vacant,
position in Boston for which she was qualified and to which she ought
to have been reassigned. Under the Rehabilitation Act, the agency is
not required to create a job for an employee.
