Assume that a federal employee was stricken by a serious medical condition requiring surgery, and upon return to work the treating physician included no overtime as a reasonable accommodation. Though the accommodation was accepted, what if over a year later the agency issued instructions to all employees, including this employee, that due to challenging conditions overtime was required of all employees. Assume the employee attempted to work overtime but informed the supervisor this was no longer possible due to limitations arising from the medical condition which earlier required surgery. Not wanting to discourage an employee from filing an EEO claim alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), I only point out an affirmative defense may be raised by the agency. Most ADA complainants allege the agency denied reasonable accommodation and/or agency failed to interact with the employee in a dialogue to determine whether there existed a reasonable accommodation. For these claims, the complainant has the burden of proof. The employee generally has the burden of proof unless the defense offered by the agency is deemed by the ADA, EEOC, or court decisions treat the facts and law as an affirmative defense.
A statutory limitation on the agency’s obligation under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodation is that no change or modification is necessary if it causes “undue hardship” to the agency. Undue hardship refers not only to financial difficulty but to...
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, apologized Monday for incorrectly interpreting a term used for starving prisoners in Nazi concentration...