MSPB said in a recent publication it sends through the government personnel community that several of its recent decisions regarding Agency management’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities “demonstrate the importance of both sides taking part in discussions in good faith.”
In one case, the agency imposed strict physical and mental requirements and an employee was indefinitely suspended for alleged failure to meet them. The agency did not offer the employee a position that did not carry those requirements even though it had a vacancy that would have fit the employee.
In contrast, in another case an employee with knee problems had been granted permission for more than three years to have a work assignment near her office but the agency changed its mind and ultimately moved to fire her for inability to perform duties. MSPB held on appeal that the agency had not violated its duty of reasonable accommodation because the agency offered her other reasonable accommodations, all of which she declined.
In another, the board similarly found that the employee rejected numerous attempts to reasonably accommodate her medical restrictions, insisting on staying in a job for which she was not qualified due to the medical restrictions. In those cases, the agency decisions were upheld because the agencies “had acted in good faith to engage their employees in the interactive process.”
Said MSPB, “reasonable accommodation discussions are not unilateral. Both parties have the obligation to work together to find a solution, and a party that refuses to do so in good faith can be held accountable.”
