Is Taking a Nap Every Two Hours a Reasonable Accommodation for Narcolepsy?
By Deborah J. Hopkins, May 15, 2025
Key facts:
- The complainant had two reasonable accommodations for his narcolepsy – periodic naps, and flexibility to travel to obtain medication refills.
- The agency terminated the complainant after he requested – and the agency granted – a modification to his medication refill travel schedule.
- The EEOC found the agency retaliated against the complainant because of his accommodation requests, and created a hostile work environment when it transferred him to a new position and then terminated his employment.
This case involves a contractor who had worked with the State Department for 30 years, and who for the past 10 years had worked in Iraq as a Systems Administrator. In October 2020 he claimed the agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability (Type I Narcolepsy, Colon Cancer) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
- On July 20, 2020, he was terminated from his position as a contractor for the agency; and
- Since the fall of 2018, he was subjected to a hostile work environment characterized by, but not limited to, heightened scrutiny and disapproval of his reasonable accommodation.
Wes L. v. State, EEOC App. No. 2021005122, 2 (May 15, 2023).
The case primarily focuses on the reasonable accommodation requests related to the complainant’s narcolepsy, “which flares up when he misses his medication. If he misses his medication, he experiences hallucinations, nausea, double vision, and daytime sleepiness. … Because he experiences daytime drowsiness and sudden attacks of sleep, his narcolepsy reportedly impacts his sleep, ability to work, and his ability to eat.” Id.
Agency-approved accommodations for the complainant’s narcolepsy included a 15-minute nap every two hours while he was on duty, and the flexibility to return to the United States periodically to obtain medication that was not available to him in Iraq.
On a 2020 trip to the United States he requested to return to Iraq on a flight a few weeks later than originally scheduled, so that he could obtain enough medication to last him an additional three months in Iraq. The agency granted the request, but then terminated him just days later, claiming that the last-minute change of plans for his return flight left the agency unable to replace the complainant with another contractor, which caused a customer service hardship.
While the Commission found this was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory articulation of the agency’s reasoning, it also found the agency’s claim was pretextual and the facts did not support the agency’s assertion about the timing of the complainant’s request to change his flight. Therefore the agency “retaliated against Complainant in violation of the Rehabilitation Act when it asked that Complainant be removed from his post with the Agency following his request for reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 7.
The case also addressed the complainant’s claims of hostile work environment harassment and found that the complainant’s job transfer (motivated by his supervisor’s disapproval of his need for naps) and his termination amounted to tangible employment actions taken because of the reasonable accommodation requests. [email protected]
Related training: