Keep Accommodations on the Radar After Workers’ Comp Claims
By Frank Ferreri, October 15, 2024
Quick facts:
- A mail carrier had a string of injuries over several years that resulted in workers’ compensation coverage and absences from the job.
- The carrier’s supervisor repeatedly misclassified her time off and allegedly made derogatory remarks about her disability being a “lifestyle.”
- Due to a lack of evidence about accommodations and the carrier’s status as a “qualified individual,” the court dismissed her Rehabilitation Act claim.
When a workers’ compensation scenario arises, chances are an employee has a disability that could find coverage under the Rehabilitation Act and be subject to that law’s requirements regarding reasonable accommodations.
However, an on-the-job injury doesn’t automatically trigger accommodation duties with no other documentation. As the court in Johnson v. DeJoy, No. 23-2342 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2024) explained, the employee still has to show an accommodation exists that it will allow her to perform the essential functions of her job.
Many years, multiple injuries
A full-time mail carrier was involved in an incident on the job where she reported that she was “wrongfully accused of hitting a customer with her mail truck and leaving the scene.” According to the carrier, she was sent home for about eight months before being offered her job back and was not paid for “the pain suffered” as a result of the incident.
After she returned to the job, and while she was two months pregnant, the carrier fell down a flight of stairs while delivering mail. She injured her lower back and tailbone, which required medical treatment and resulted in the loss of her pregnancy.
Because of the accident, the carrier suffered from “a severely depressed mood, anxiety, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.” She was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. The carrier sought FMLA leave, which was denied.
Later, the carrier took leave approved by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (OWCP). When she returned to work, she requested reasonable accommodations. According to the carrier, the agency responded “by creating a hostile work environment and retaliating against” her and by refusing to sign and return her leave slips and improperly coding her OWCP-approved leave as AWOL and LWOP.
After contacting an EEOC counselor, the carrier received and signed an Offer of Modified Assignment but did so “under protest,” as her new schedule interfered with her childcare responsibilities.
Eventually, the carrier and the agency reached a settlement agreement under which her supervisor would sign and return her leave slips and correct leave that had been improperly recorded.
The carrier returned to work. Within a few days, she was chased by a dog, fell, and injured her right wrist, shoulder, lower back, and both knees. After some delay, the OWCP accepted her request for continuation of pay (COP). Again, however, the supervisor improperly coded her absences as LWOP or annual leave.
Human resources informed the carrier her health benefits had been terminated because she had not remained in a pay and duty status for eight pay periods, prompting another EEOC complaint and instruction from OWCP for the agency to provide the carrier with a job that complied with her medical restrictions.
The carrier returned to work and, on several occasions, was required to perform work in violation of her medical restrictions. Again, the carrier had to take leave and again had her absences misclassified.
Following an alleged statement from the supervisor that the carrier’s disabilities were a “lifestyle,” the carrier brought a Rehabilitation Act claim, alleging a failure to accommodate.
The carrier’s case
Under the Rehabilitation Act, agencies must make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability. To be a “qualified individual,” an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of a job with or without reasonable accommodation. While a determination that an employee is not a qualified individual is rare on a motion to dismiss, it can be appropriate where an employee has not indicated that she could perform the essential functions of her job and has not identified a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to do so.
The court granted the agency’s motion to dismiss the carrier’s failure to accommodate claim. She failed to allege what her essential functions were and to present relevant reasonable accommodation options to the court.
“Rather, [the carrier] merely states that a ‘reasonable accommodation would have allowed her to fulfill all essential functions of her job,’” the court wrote, explaining that such a statement was “a legal conclusion that the court need not accept as true.”
The court noted the only evidence the carrier presented as to qualification was her assertion that she was “otherwise qualified for her position,” due to her long and successful employment history.
The court interpreted this argument as the carrier asking it to infer from her employment history that she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodations.
Lesson for agencies
The court wrote that “it is unable to make this inference,” due to a lack of evidence on whether and to what degree she was impaired, and how the nature and severity of her impairments evolved over the course of about 12 years. Thus, the court found the carrier had not stated a Rehabilitation Act claim.
When an employee is dealing with matters involving workers’ compensation, it is not a bad idea to consider whether accommodations might be in order. At the same time, an agency will not be at fault for breakdowns in the interactive process when an accommodation has not been proposed, so as to allow an employee to perform the essential functions of her job or desired role.
Similarly, if a case ends up in court, and an employee doesn’t have the details on what makes her qualified for her job, the court will have a hard time moving ahead with the case. The agency didn’t do itself any favors by continually mixing up how the employee’s time off was recorded (or not, as it were). The court doesn’t tell us much about the emotional backstory of the case, but it’s not hard to imagine an employee feeling frustration from the kinds of repeated mistakes the carrier had to deal with.
Remember, COP is an entitlement for Federal employees injured on the job in which the agency continues to pay an employee her regular pay during a period of disability for up to 45 days. In this case, the mix-up interfered with that benefit. As a result, it affected the carrier’s finances.
Mistakes happen, but when they keep happening, it can turn the temperature up on a dispute and bring a case into court that might have had a quicker, easier resolution. [email protected]
Related training:
- 5 Things to Know About Reasonable Accommodation for 2025, December 5, 2024
- EEOC Law Week, March 24-28