|
|
Taylor v. Rice, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Court Opinion
- Categories
-
- Resource Type
-
Court and Agency Decisions and Orders
- Description
-
Plaintiff sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when the United States government rejected his Foreign Service Officer application on the grounds that his HIV-positive status precluded him from fulfilling an essential job function namely, worldwide availability to serve abroad and that, in the governments view, his status would unreasonably require expensive and disruptive medical travel. It was undisputed that plaintiff was exceptionally qualified for the position. In this D.C. Circuit Court opinion, plaintiff successful appealed from the district courts grant of summary judgment which held that (1) plaintiffs HIV-positive status was a direct threat to his health and, alternatively, (2) accommodating plaintiffs disability would place an undue burden on the employer. Defendants alleged non-pretextual reason for rejecting plaintiffs application his alleged asthma was also disputed.
In reversing and remanding for further proceedings, the Circuit Court found that several issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The direct threat defense must be based on an individualized assessment of the individuals present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. Here, it was undisputed that plaintiff could receive adequate medical care in at least 68 percent of the Foreign Services overseas posts. In examining whether this amounted to worldwide availability, the Court looked to Foreign Service statutes and regulations, written job descriptions and the experiences of incumbents in similar jobs. The Court found that the statutes, regulations and job descriptions failed to define worldwide availability and that plaintiff presented evidence of officers who were geographically limited for a variety of reasons. Thus, the record revealed a genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiffs ability to perform the essential job function of worldwide availability. The reasonableness o plaintiffs second proposed accommodation, that he utilize vacation and personal time for medical care, was similarly a disputed fact. In acknowledging that the Act does not provide a comprehensive list of reasonable accommodations, the court noted that that the parties presented conflicting medical evidence about the frequency of plaintiffs health care appointments and that some amount of medical travel and expenses were typically incurred by other Foreign Service Officers without undue hardship on the government. Finally, the court rejected defendants alleged non-pretextual reasons for failing to hire plaintiff because, among other things, officers with asthma had previously been hired.
- File
-
Click here to download this document [ 170.84 kB ]
- Published
-
2006-June-27
|
|
