[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11019-11023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4596]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Part 1614
RIN 3046-AA57
Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission or
EEOC) proposes to amend its regulation governing federal sector equal
employment opportunity to reflect the 1992 amendment of section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Congress amended section 501 in October
1992 to state that the nondiscrimination standards of Title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act apply to section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 1, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the Office of the Executive
Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507. Copies of comments submitted by the
public will be available for review on weekdays, except federal
holidays, at the Commission's library, Room 6502, 1801 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol R. Miaskoff, Assistant Legal
Counsel, at (202) 663-4689 or TDD (202) 663-7026. This document is also
available in the following formats: large print, braille, audio tape,
and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this document in an
alternative format should be made to the Publications Information
Center at 1-800-669-3362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1992, Public Law 102-569, 106 Stat. 4344 (1992 Amendments or
Rehabilitation Act Amendments), Congress added a new subsection (g) to
section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791 (section
501). Subsection (g) provides that the standards used to determine
whether section 501 has been violated in a complaint alleging
``nonaffirmative action employment discrimination'' \1\ are the
standards of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), as well as sections 501 through 504, and 510 of the ADA, as such
sections relate to employment.\2\ This notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) sets forth proposed regulatory revisions to implement the
Rehabilitation Act Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accordingly, the 1992 Amendments do not alter affirmative
action duties under section 501. For simplicity, the phrase
``employment discrimination'' will be used in this document in lieu
of the statutory phrase ``nonaffirmative action employment
discrimination.''
\2\ See 42 U.S.C. 12101-12117, 12201-12213 (1994) (codified as
amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Proposal
The Commission promulgated its latest regulation under section 501
of the Rehabilitation Act in April, 1992, several months before
Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act Amendments in October, 1992.
The Commission now proposes to update this section 501 regulation,
found at 29 CFR 1614.203, by deleting all of the current provisions and
adding a new paragraph (b)(1) that cross-references the ADA regulation
at 29 CFR Part 1630. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The fact that the ADA's definition of ``employer'' excludes
the United States does not impact this proposal. See 42 U.S.C.
12111(5)(B)(i); 29 CFR 1630.2 (e)(2)(i). The NPRM does not state
that the ADA regulation applies directly to the federal government
as an employer. Rather, the NPRM simply implements the
Rehabilitation Act Amendments by applying ADA employment
discrimination standards through Section 501 to the federal sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of the ADA Standards
As a general matter, the ADA regulation is more extensive than the
requirements in place under Sec. 1614.203. \4\ In other respects,
however, the ADA regulation closely corresponds to provisions in
Sec. 1614.203. The following discussion compares each paragraph in
Sec. 1614.203 to the corresponding section(s) of the ADA regulation,
and identifies major consequences of applying the ADA regulation to the
federal sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under the 1992 Amendments, the federal sector is subject to
all ADA employment discrimination standards through Section 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions: Change from Paragraph 1614.203(a) to 29 CFR 1630.2
Subparagraphs 1614.203(a)(1)--(a)(5)
The Commission proposes to delete 29 CFR 1614.203(a)(1)--(a)(5)
because these sections are repetitive of ADA definitions at 29 C.F.R.
1630.2. For example, the definition of ``disability'' in the two
regulations is virtually identical, referring in both instances to an
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
a record of such a substantially limiting impairment, or being regarded
as having such a substantially limiting impairment.\5\ The ADA
regulation also defines several important terms that are not defined in
Sec. 1614.203, such as ``essential functions,'' ``qualification
standards,'' and ``direct threat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Compare 29 CFR 1614.203(a)(1) with 29 CFR 1630.2(g). In a
decision focused closely on the wording of the ADA definition of
``disability,'' the Supreme Court held in Sutton v. United Airlines,
119 S. Ct. 2139, 9 AD Cas. (BNA) 673 (1999), that the positive and
negative effects of corrective or mitigating measures must be
considered when judging whether an impairment substantially limits
one or more of an individual's major life activities and, therefore,
whether the individual is ``disabled'' under the first prong of the
ADA's definition of ``disability.'' See also Murphy v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2133, 9 AD Cas. (BNA) 691 (1999); and
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S. Ct. 2162, 9 AD Cas. (BNA)
694 (1999). The Court's decision in Sutton does not affect the text
of the ADA regulation because the regulation does not address
mitigating measures. The Sutton holding, however, alters the
Commission's subregulatory ADA guidance to the extent such guidance
sets forth a position on mitigating measures that is contrary to the
Court's holding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subparagraph 1614.203(a)(6): Safety Issues and ``Qualified Individual
with [a Disability]''
The Commission proposes to delete 29 CFR 1614.203(a)(6) because it
is inconsistent with the ADA's standard on safety issues. Under the
ADA, an employer can disqualify an individual from employment if the
employer shows that the individual poses a ``direct threat'' to health
and safety, even after considering reasonable accommodation. The ADA
regulation defines ``direct threat'' as a ``significant risk of
substantial harm,'' and states that an employer must consider
individualized medical or other objective evidence to decide if a
particular individual poses a ``direct threat.'' 29 CFR 1630.2(r). By
contrast, the old subparagraph 1614.203(a)(6) did not even use ``direct
[[Page 11020]]
threat'' as a defined term, and instead, addressed safety concerns by
requiring the employee to show that s/he could work without endangering
health or safety as part of the larger showing that s/he was a
``qualified individual with a disability.''
The Commission has applied this ADA ``direct threat'' standard in
federal sector decisions subsequent to the 1992 Amendments. See Kahout
v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01954900 (June 19, 1997); Hobbs v. USPS, EEOC
Appeal No. 01944181 (January 26, 1996); Robinson v. USPS, EEOC Request
No. 05940034 (September 16, 1994).
Paragraph 1614.203(b): Nondiscrimination Obligation and Model Employer
The Commission proposes to redesignate current paragraph (b) as new
paragraph (a), and to replace the term ``handicaps'' with
``disabilities'' in its text.\6\ Thus, new paragraph (a) sets forth the
basic principle that federal agencies have an obligation not to
discriminate in employment on the basis of disability. Moreover,
paragraph (a) states that ``[t]he [f]ederal [g]overnment shall be a
model employer of individuals with disabilities.'' Finally, this
paragraph requires agencies to give full consideration to the hiring,
placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with mental and
physical disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The term ``handicaps'' is changed to ``disabilities''
throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship: Change From Paragraph
1614.203(c) to 29 CFR 1630.2(o), (p) and 1630.9
The Commission proposes to delete 29 CFR 1614.203(c) and instead
apply the pertinent ADA standards, thereby providing federal employers
with more guidance about reasonable accommodation and undue hardship
than the pre-ADA standards.\7\ For example, the ADA regulation defines
the phrase ``reasonable accommodation'' as ``a means by which barriers
to the equal employment opportunity of an individual with a disability
are removed or alleviated,'' and thereby articulates a basic principle
that may help federal employers and employees to evaluate potential
accommodations.\8\ The ADA regulation also states that, if an employee
requests reasonable accommodation but the most appropriate
accommodation is not obvious, the employer needs ``to initiate an
informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a
disability'' to identify an effective accommodation. See 29 C.F.R.
1630.2(o)(3). In terms of specific accommodations, the ADA regulation
adds reassignment and ``modification of examinations, training
materials, or policies'' to the familiar list included in the pre-ADA
regulation. See 29 CFR 1630.2(o)(2).\9\ Finally, the ADA regulation
provides an extensive discussion of the employer defense of ``undue
hardship,'' directing the employer to consider a range of financial and
operational factors to evaluate whether a particular reasonable
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its operations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a discussion of reasonable accommodation and undue
hardship, see 29 CFR 1630.2(o), (p) (defining reasonable
accommodation and undue hardship, respectively) and 29 CFR 1630.9
(discussing failure to provide reasonable accommodation as a
discriminatory practice). The Commission issued guidance on
reasonable accommodation and undue hardship in its ``EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,'' 8 FEP Manual (BNA)
405:7601(1999) [hereinafter ``Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation
and Undue Hardship'']. The analysis in this Enforcement Guidance
applies to federal sector employment discrimination complaints
arising under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. See id.
\8\ See 29 CFR part 1630 app. 1630.9.
\9\ A reasonable accommodation that has increasing significance
in the federal workplace is providing accessible electronic and
information technology to make facilities and services readily
accessible to individuals with disabilities. See 29 CFR
1630.2(o)(2)(i) (it is a reasonable accommodation to make ``existing
facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities''); id. at 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (``other
similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities'' may be
required).
\10\ A reasonable accommodation imposes an ``undue hardship'' on
an employer's operation when it results in ``significant difficulty
or expense.'' 42 U.S.C. 12111(10). In assessing undue hardship, an
employer should consider several factors including: (1) The nature
and net cost of the accommodation; (2) the overall financial
resources of the facility or facilities involved in making the
accommodation; (3) the overall financial resources of the covered
entity; (4) the type of operation or operations of the covered
entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the
workforce, and the geographic separateness and the administrative
and fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to
the covered entity; and (5) the impact of the accommodation on the
operation of the facility. See 42 U.S.C. 12111(10)(B); 29 C.F.R.
1630.2(p)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the federal employer, the most notable change resulting from
the 1992 Amendments is that reassignment is now treated as a reasonable
accommodation pursuant to express language in the ADA. 42 U.S.C.
12111(9)(B). An employer's duty to provide reassignment is limited only
by ``undue hardship.'' The change will be discussed in detail in the
section titled ``Reassignment.''
Employment Criteria: Change from Paragraph 1614.203(d) to 29 CFR
1630.10 and 1630.11
The Commission proposes to eliminate paragraph (d), which governed
the use of tests and selection criteria, and instead apply the ADA
standards at 29 CFR 1630.10 and 1630.11. Under the ADA, it is unlawful
to use qualification standards, tests, or other selection criteria that
screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, based
on disability, unless the standards or criteria are shown to be job-
related and consistent with business necessity. 29 CFR 1630.10.
Consideration must be given to whether an individual with a disability
can satisfy a qualification standard or other selection criteria with
reasonable accommodation. See 29 CFR 1630.15.
Moreover, an individual with a disability must not be excluded from
employment simply because his/her disability prevents him/her from
taking a test, or negatively influences the results of a test. The
Interpretive Guidance appended to the ADA regulation states that
employment tests must be administered using accessible test sites and
formats, and in a way that measures ability rather than disability. 29
CFR part. 1630 app. 1630.11.
Preemployment Inquiries: Change from Paragraph 1614.203(e) to 29 C.F.R.
1630.13 and 1630.14
The Commission proposes to delete paragraph (e) and apply the
pertinent ADA standards at 29 CFR 1630.13 and 1630.14. Under the ADA
standards, a federal agency employer remains prohibited from making
inquiries as to whether an applicant is an individual with a
disability, or as to the nature or severity of such disability, and may
not conduct a pre-offer medical examination. See 29 CFR 1630.13(a). To
the extent that an employer wants to determine if an applicant's
medical condition will prevent him/her from performing a job, the ADA
only permits a few specified preemployment inquiries.\11\ By contrast,
the preemployment inquiry provision in old paragraph 1614.203(e) gave
agencies broader discretion to ask applicants
[[Page 11021]]
about their medical conditions, expressly permitting agencies to
inquire ``into an applicant's ability to meet the essential functions
of the job, or the medical qualification requirements if applicable,
with or without reasonable accommodation, * * * i.e. the minimum
abilities necessary for safe and efficient performance of the duties of
a position.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a detailed discussion of pertinent ADA requirements,
see the Appendix to 29 CFR 1630.14, and ``ADA Enforcement Guidance:
Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical
Examinations,'' 8 FEP Manual(BNA) 405:7191 (1995) [hereinafter
``Guidance on Preemployment Inquiries'']. Note that the ADA also
permits pre-offer disability-related inquiries that are necessary
for affirmative action purposes. See Guidance on Preemployment
Inquiries, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) at 405:7196-97 (1995). The proposed
deletion of paragraph (e) will not affect federal sector affirmative
action efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ADA allows medical inquiries or examinations after a
conditional offer of employment but before work begins, assuming all
individuals in the same job category are subjected to the same
inquiries or examinations regardless of disability. See 29 CFR
1630.14(b). An employer may ask specific individuals for more follow-up
information if the request is medically related to the previously
obtained information.\12\ Under the ADA, however, an employer who
withdraws a conditional offer of employment based on disability-related
information obtained during a post-offer inquiry or examination can
defend against a charge of discrimination only by showing: (1) that it
used exclusionary criteria that were job-related and consistent with
business necessity; and (2) that it considered reasonable accommodation
but the person could not have performed the essential job functions
even with reasonable accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. 1630.14(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See supra note 11, Guidance on Preemployment Inquiries, 8
FEP Manual (BNA) at 405:7197-99 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ADA also prohibits employers from making disability-related
inquiries or requiring medical examinations of employees unless those
inquiries or examinations are job-related and consistent with business
necessity. 42 USC 12112(d)(4); 29 CFR part. 1630, app. 1630.14(c).\13\
Finally, the federal employer should note that part 1630 imposes
confidentiality restrictions on all medical information obtained from
employees and applicants. See 29 CFR 1630.14 (b)(1) and (c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For a discussion of this standard, see ``EEOC Enforcement
Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric
Disabilities,'' at question 14, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7461,7467-70
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Access to Buildings: Change from Paragraph 1614.203(f) to 29
CFR part 1630
The Commission proposes to delete paragraph 1614.203(f), concerning
physical access to buildings. If an applicant or employee is denied
equal employment opportunity because she cannot obtain physical access
to a building, then the nondiscrimination standards of part 1630
control.
As a practical matter, federal agencies' obligations in this area
are not expected to change significantly. Under the old paragraph
1614.203(f), an agency may not have an inaccessible facility.
Additionally, federal agencies already must comply with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the ADA's accessibility
requirements. By adopting the ADA's employment nondiscrimination
standards, the NPRM would require agencies to provide reasonable
accommodation if an applicant or employee would be denied equal
employment opportunity because she could not obtain physical access to
a building.
Reassignment: Change From Paragraph 1614.203(g) to New Paragraph
1614.203(b)(2)
The Commission proposes to delete paragraph 1614.203(g) and to add
a new paragraph 1614.203(b)(2) stating the ADA's requirement of
reasonable accommodation as it pertains to reassignment. In the ADA,
Congress listed ``reassignment to a vacant position'' as a form of
reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. 12111(9)(B). The ADA treats
reasonable accommodation as a nondiscrimination obligation.\14\ An
employer's duty to provide reassignment, like any reasonable
accommodation, is limited by ``undue hardship.'' By applying the ADA
standard to reassignment, federal employees will now benefit from the
same protections provided employees in the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Consequently, the Commission now considers reassignment a
reasonable accommodation rather than affirmative action for purposes
of Section 501. Cf. 57 Fed. Reg. 12634, 12637-12638 (April 10, 1992)
(preamble to regulation at 29 CFR 1614.203(g), which was issued
before the 1992 Amendments, stated that reassignment was affirmative
action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obligation To Reassign
Reassignment to a vacant position is the reasonable accommodation
of last resort and is required only if: (1) There are no effective
accommodations that will enable the employee to perform the essential
functions of his/her position, or (2) all other reasonable
accommodations would impose an undue hardship. See S. Rep. No. 101-116,
at 31 (1989); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2 at 63 (1990); Smith v.
Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 9 AD Cas. (BNA) 738 (10th Cir.
1999) (en banc); Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 8 AD Cas.
(BNA) 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc); Stone v. City of Mount Vernon,
118 F.3d 92, 100-01, 6 AD Cas. (BNA) 1685, 1693 (2d Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 118 S. Ct. 1044 (1998); Kitaura v. USPS, EEOC Petition No.
03980089 (March 11, 1999); but see, e.g., Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox
Co., 117 F.3d 800, 7 AD Cas. (BNA) 331 (5th Cir. 1997), cert denied,
118 S. Ct. 1050 (1998). Reassignment means that the employee receives
the vacant \15\ position if s/he is qualified for it. Cf. Smith, supra
(stating that ``the reassignment obligation must mean something more
than merely allowing a disabled person to compete equally with the rest
of the world for a vacant position'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A position is ``vacant'' if it is available when the
employee asks for reasonable accommodation, or if it is expected to
become available within a reasonable amount of time. See 29 CFR part
1630 app. Sec. 1630.2(o). In the federal government, a position is
vacant for purposes of reassignment if it is funded and not yet
encumbered, even if the agency has already posted a notice
advertising the position. See Schuetter v. DOD, EEOC Petition No.
03970140 (January 15, 1999). An employer is not obligated to create
a new position to implement a reassignment. See Mitchell v. DOD,
EEOC Petition No. 03930164 (January 21, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Employee Must Be Qualified
Probationary Employee
A probationary employee with a disability is eligible for
reassignment to a new position as long as s/he adequately performed the
essential functions of her/his original position, with or without
reasonable accommodation, before the need for reassignment arose. The
longer a newly hired probationary employee has adequately performed the
essential functions of the original job, with or without reasonable
accommodation, the more likely it is that reassignment is appropriate
when the employee becomes unable to continue performing such functions
due to a disability.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue
Hardship, supra note 7, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) at 405:7622-23 (1999).
Applicants are not entitled to reassignment. An applicant for a
position must be qualified for, and be able to perform with or
without reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of the
position s/he seeks. See 29 CFR part 1630 app. Sec. 1630.2(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Qualified for New Job
An employee is ``qualified'' for the new position if s/he: (1)
Satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-
related requirements of that position; and (2) can perform the
essential functions of the position, with or without reasonable
accommodation. See Stone v. Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 100-01, 6 AD
Cas. (BNA) 1685, 1693 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1044
(1998). The employer is not obliged to provide training so that an
employee can acquire new skills for a particular reassignment. However,
the employer must provide any training routinely given to other
individuals
[[Page 11022]]
hired for, or transferred into, the same job. See Quintana v. Sound
Distribution Corp., 6 AD Cas. (BNA) 842, 846 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). See also
Schuetter v. DOD, EEOC Petition No. 03970140 (January 15, 1999).
The Interactive Process
As with reasonable accommodation generally, the federal employer
and the individual with a disability who has requested reassignment may
need to engage in an interactive process to identify an appropriate
position. The employer may not know about all of the individual's
skills, and the individual may not be aware of the range of available
positions. See Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 1997). The
interactive process need not be onerous. The aim is to identify the
employee's qualifications, potential new jobs, and the employee's
willingness to accept a particular transfer, through a flexible process
involving a two-way dialogue between the employer and the qualified
individual with a disability.
The Extent of the Agency's Duty to Search for Another Position
The Federal Employer Must Search for Vacant Positions
The federal employer must search for available vacancies. The
employee does not have the burden of identifying open positions without
the employer's assistance. Taylor v. Phoenixville School District, 1999
WL 649376 (3d Cir. August 18, 1999). Of course, the employee should
assist the employer in identifying appropriate positions, to the extent
s/he can gather such information.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Additionally, in a unionized workplace, the employer and
the union, as a collective bargaining representative, must negotiate
in good faith over a variance to the collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) if no reasonable accommodation exists that avoids violating
the CBA. See Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue
Hardship, supra note 7, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) at 405: 7633 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employer first should search for vacant positions that are
equivalent to the current position in terms of pay, status, and other
relevant factors (e.g., geographical location or benefits), and for
which the individual is qualified. When it is not possible to identify
a vacant position that is substantially equivalent to the original job,
the federal employer needs to broaden its search. During interagency
coordination, a question was raised about when a job technically
becomes ``vacant'' and therefore available for reassignment in the
federal government. The Commission solicits comment on this point.
The ADA does not limit the obligation to reassign to positions
within the same appointing authority or commuting area as the original
job.\18\ Indeed, reassignment to a different component of the same
department may now be required, barring undue hardship. See Kitaura
supra. If an employee is being reassigned to a different geographical
area, s/he must pay for any relocation expenses unless the employer
routinely pays such expenses when granting other employees' requests
for transfers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 5 AD Cas.
(BNA) 1466 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that lower court erroneously
limited a plaintiff's request for documents since plaintiff should
be able to present evidence about reassignment possibilities in
other departments); Malabarba v. Chicago Tribune Co., 149 F.3d 690,
8 AD Cas. (BNA) 1505 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that company conducted
conscientious intra-company search for position, even though its
efforts could not result in reassignment); see Kitaura supra; but
see Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., 898 F. Supp. 324 (W.D.N.C.
1995), 5 AD Cas. (BNA) 325, aff'd 77 F.3d 470, 8 AD Cas. (BNA) 1536
(4th Cir. 1996).
\19\ If an employee freely states that s/he would not move to a
different geographical area, the federal employer need not continue
its search for a position in that geographic area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Undue Hardship Defense
Because Congress deemed reassignment to be a reasonable
accommodation, a federal employer can deny a request for reassignment
if it poses an undue hardship. See 42 U.S.C. 12111(10)(B); 29 CFR
1630.2(p). See supra note 10. The Commission evaluates undue hardship
on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a federal employer claims that
it would be an undue hardship to search for vacancies at different
facilities in the same department, the Commission would examine the
administrative and financial links between the department and its
separate facilities to determine whether such a search would, in fact,
impose ``significant difficulty or expense'' on the federal employer.
Reassignment outside of the department--to a different department in
the federal government--will be presumed to be an undue hardship at
this time. Under current procedures, one federal department cannot
compel another to accept a transferred employee, even as a reasonable
accommodation.
Proposal To Delete Paragraph 1614.203(h): Exclusion From Definition of
``Individual(s) With [Disabilities]''
This paragraph is deleted because it is duplicative of equivalent
provisions in part 1630. Deletion of this paragraph does not change the
nondiscrimination standards applicable to federal employers.
Effective Date of a Finalized Rule After Public Comment
This regulation would be effective 30 days after publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register. Like the recently-finalized
procedural changes to part 1614, the current NPRM would apply to all
pending Section 501 discrimination complaints.
Additional Amendment
The Commission proposes to delete the provision in
Sec. 1614.102(a)(9) which refers to reassignment pursuant to
Sec. 1614.203(g).
The Commission invites comment on these proposed changes. The
Commission will consider all comments received in conjunction with this
NPRM.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EEOC has coordinated this final
rule with the Office of Management and Budget. Under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, EEOC has determined that the regulation will not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State or local tribal governments or communities.
Therefore, a detailed cost-benefit assessment of the regulation is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation contains no information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In addition, the Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, because it applies exclusively to employees
and agencies and departments of the federal government. For this
reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1614
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities.
[[Page 11023]]
For the Commission.
Ida L. Castro,
Chairwoman.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EEOC proposes to amend
Chapter XIV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1614--FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
1. the authority citation for part 1614 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 633(a), 791 and 794a; 42 U.S.C.
2000e-16; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 11222, 3
CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 11478, 3 CFR, 1969 Comp., p. 133;
E.O. 12106, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 263; Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 3
CFR 1978 Comp., p. 321.
Sec. 1614.102 [Amended]
2. Section 1614.102 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(9) and
redesignating paragraphs (a)(10) through (a)(14) as paragraphs (a)(9)
through (a)(13), respectively.
3. Section 1614.203 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1614.203 Rehabilitation Act.
(a) Model employer. The Federal Government shall be a model
employer of individuals with disabilities. Agencies shall not
discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. Agencies
shall give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement
of qualified individuals with disabilities.
(b) ADA standards. (1) The standards used to determine whether
section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has been violated in a
complaint alleging nonaffirmative action employment discrimination
under this part shall be the standards applied under Titles I and V of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101-12102,
12111-12117, 12201-12213) as such sections relate to employment. These
standards are set forth in the Commission's ADA regulations at 29 CFR
part 1630.
(2) Agencies must provide reasonable accommodation to the known
physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual
with a disability, unless the agency can demonstrate that the
accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Reasonable accommodation
may include reassignment to a vacant position. Reassignment is the
reasonable accommodation of last resort and is required only after it
has been determined either that:
(i) There are no effective accommodations that will enable the
employee to perform the essential functions of his/her current
position; or
(ii) All other accommodations would impose an undue hardship.
[FR Doc. 00-4596 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P