When a Supervisor (Improperly) Requires Full Access to an Employee’s Medical Documentation Before Approving an Accommodation
By Deborah J. Hopkins, January 20, 2026
Medical documentation is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of employee leave requests, and is complicated
further when the employee is a qualified individual with a disability, and his leave request doubles as a request for reasonable accommodation.
A recent MSPB case considered this scenario, McClelland v. VA, AT-0752-23-0162-I-1 (Dec. 10, 2025)(NP). Here’s what happened.
- Jan 6, 2022: The appellant, who had contracted COVID, began using sick leave.
- 5: The appellant had exhausted his sick leave balance, but he was still suffering from complications, including COVID-related pneumonia.
- 6: The appellant requested the use of extended annual leave due to his continued inability to return to work. The supervisor acknowledged the request and said the appellant would be required to submit medical documentation directly to him, as a condition of approval.
- The appellant, not wanting to give his medical information directly to his supervisor, provided medical documentation from his pulmonologist to the agency’s Medical Director.
- 14 and 17: The Medical Director relayed the broad “substance of the medical note to the appellant’s supervisor and informed the supervisor that the appellant was medically unable to work,” and said that the appellant would be re-assessed by his pulmonologist on Mar. 1. Id. at 3.
- 16: The appellant informed his supervisor that he had provided documentation to the Medical Director.
- 18: The appellant again requested annual leave to cover his absences. His supervisor responded that he had still not received the appellant’s medical documentation and denied the request.
- 2: Still too sick to work, the appellant submitted for FMLA leave.
- 31: The appellant submitted a retirement request because he needed benefits and “was in an unpaid status, his request to use annual leave had not been approved, and his FMLA request had not been approved.” Id.
- 1: The appellant filed an EEO complaint alleging the agency created a “hostile work environment based on race, age, disability, and reprisal for EEO activity by, among other things, denying him reasonable accommodation, denying him use of his annual leave, and constructively removing him from his position.” Id.
- The agency informed the appellant that his case was a mixed case and that he could submit his complaint to the agency’s EEO office for a Final Agency Decision (FAD), that he could appeal the FAD to the MSPB, or file an MSPB appeal if he had not received the FAD within 120 days of his complaint being filed.
- 15, 2023: The appellant, who had not received a FAD, filed an MSPB appeal alleging a constructive discharge, claiming the agency created “an intolerable work environment that had compelled him to retire,” and that he had been subjected to disability discrimination when the agency denied his leave request. Id. at 4.
- 20: The MSPB administrative judge (AJ) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the appellant’s retirement was a voluntary action because the illness, and not the agency’s action, caused the retirement.
That brings us to the current case, where the Board considered the appellant’s petition for review. It disagreed with the AJ and determined that the appellant established his retirement was involuntary for two reasons:
- The appellant lacked a meaningful choice in his retirement because he was medically unable to work due to his COVID-related pneumonia, and
- The agency’s improper actions deprived the appellant of a meaningful choice: the agency refused to engage in the interactive process when it did not consider whether annual leave was a reasonable accommodation, even though the appellant had provided sufficient medical documentation.
If you’re thinking, “Wait, COVID isn’t a disability, so why was he entitled to an accommodation?” it would behoove you to check the government’s current guidance, which states long-term COVID and related conditions meet the ADAAA definition of disability.
A failure to engage in the interactive process is not always a fatal flaw, provided the agency still provides an effective accommodation, but in this case, it did not – nor did it provide evidence that granting the leave would be an undue hardship.
The Board ordered the agency to reinstate the appellant, retroactive to his retirement date, plus award him back pay, interest, and related costs. [email protected]
Related training:
- UnCivil Servant: Holding Employees Accountable for Performance and Conduct, February 11-12
- EEOC Law Week, March 23-27
- MSPB Law Week, April 20-24
- Conducting Effective Harassment Investigations, May 19-21
The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
