ksaldarini@govexec.com
Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews several cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.
In a landmark decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect people with correctable conditions, such as bad eyesight. "A 'disability' exists only where an impairment 'substantially limits' a major life activity, not where it 'might,' 'could,' or 'would' be substantially limiting if corrective measures were not taken," the court said. In light of last weeks historic decision, Legal Briefs today takes a look at two significant rulings on disability discrimination from 1998.
Reversal of Fortune
Sandra Jackson made a poor career choice when she joined the Postal Service as a PS-3 custodian. Jackson, it turned out, was allergic to almost every kind of cleaning agent. The agency put her on leave in July 1994 and eventually terminated her the following year for physical inability to perform. Jackson claimed disability discrimination because, she alleged, the agency had not offered to put her in another position at a similar pay level.
The board agreed with Jackson, ordered USPS to cancel the suspension and removal, and demanded that Jackson be reassigned to a mail processor position or another position in the agency at or below her grade level, within her commuting area and within her medical restrictions-if such a position was open.
Unfortunately for Jackson, no such position was open. An administrative judge reviewing the case said Jackson was not entitled to back pay or compensatory damages because there was no job for her and because she made only "bare allegations" of discrimination. MSPB reanalyzed the case based on the administrative judge's findings. The board subsequently reversed its original decision and found no evidence of disability discrimination.
MSPB reasoned that Jackson did not meet her burden of showing that a vacant position existed that she could have filled when the agency terminated her. Even though USPS might have failed to try to accommodate Jackson by finding her a new job, she did not prove that there was a job at the agency they could have put her in had they tried. MSPB sustained Jackson's removal and dismissed the claim of discrimination.
Lesson: Before you demand a switch to a more appropriate job, make sure the job exists.
Jackson v. USPS (CH-0752-95-0898-R-1), Merit Systems Protection Board, June 26, 1998.
Guns and Firings
John J. Caronia was regarded as an outstanding security officer at a federal correctional facility. That is, until he made the mistake of telling some buddies that he once had thoughts of killing his supervisor.
Caronia relayed this information to two coworkers who called to inquire about his health while he was on temporary leave for depression and other ailments. Caronia said the murderous thoughts were behind his decision to seek psychological help and take leave.
Caronia's supervisor learned of the remarks, and found out that he had once mentioned a concealed weapon he carried in his van. The agency promptly searched the van, found the weapon, and fired Caronia on two charges: bringing an unauthorized firearm onto the grounds of a federal correctional facility and conduct unbecoming to a law enforcement officer.
Caronia appealed his removal, alleging disability discrimination on the grounds that the agency fired him because they thought he was mentally disabled. The Justice Department rejected his appeal.
Caronia then turned to MSPB. The board found that while there was no evidence that Caronia was disabled at the time of his removal, the agency regarded him as being disabled and that belief factored into the decision to fire him. According to MSPB, a federal employee can be compensated for disability discrimination even if an agency has "mixed motives" for removal. Caronia's removal was canceled and he instead received a 30-day suspension for misconduct.
Lesson: Be careful about even giving the appearance you are punishing an employee for being disabled.
Caronia v. Justice (DA-0752-96-0428-I-1), Merit Systems Protection Board, 1998.