DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (“Appellant”), appeals 1 from the Hearing Officer’s initial and supplemental Decisions and remedial order, dated March 19, and June 15, 2001, respectively, which concluded that the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (Appellant) had discriminated against Juanita Johnson (“Appellee”) on account of her physical disability. The Hearing Officer directed that the Appellee be reassigned to another position, and that the Appellant award her: back pay, with prejudgment interest; compensatory damages; attorney fees and costs; and post-judgment interest on the foregoing monetary awards.
The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the appeal and briefs, and has decided to affirm and adopt the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions, and remedial order, except as modified in this decision.2
I.
The facts, while fully explicated in the Hearing Officer’s initial decision, are summarized below.
Appellee has employed the Appellant for over 19 years as a custodial employee, charged with cleaning offices and restrooms. The Appellee suffers from three medical conditions, but principally asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”), which affect her ability to breathe. In recent years the Appellee’s asthma has worsened and her ability to breathe has been greatly reduced by exposure to such irritants as pollen, dust and cleaning chemicals. Despite extensive reliance upon inhalers, pills and other medical devices, the Appellee is physically challenged when even climbing one flight of stairs, and is unable to go shopping, do yard work, play with her grandchildren, wash dishes, vacuum, or do other housework.
In October 1999, the Appellee experienced shortness of breath and wheezing on the job due to abnormally dusty conditions. She reported this to her supervisor but he was unresponsive. Subsequently, Appellee’s physician cautioned her to seek another assignment that did not continue to expose her to environmental irritants. Thereafter, the Appellee, both verbally and with her physician’s supporting letter, asked her second and third line supervisors for a reassignment to preserve her health.. They declined by indicating that they had no non-custodial positions for her. They neither suggested alternative assignments nor referred the Appellee to anyone who could explore such assignments with her.
