ORDER FOR JOINDER OF CASES AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
These cases are before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to petitions for review filed by Anthony Katsouros (“Appellant” or “Katsouros”), an employee with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (“AOC” or “Appellee”). Katsouros seeks review under Section 5.03(d) of the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance (“OOC”), of the December 8, 2009, decision by Hearing Officer Michael Doheny that dismissed the complaint on its merits after an evidentiary hearing (“Katsouros I”) and the July 22, 2009, order granting the Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Katsouros II”). The Appellant timely filed petitions for review of the Hearing Officer’s decisions and orders; and supporting briefs. The Appellee employing office filed briefs in opposition to both petitions for review.
The Board has duly considered the Hearing Officer’s Decisions and Orders in both cases, and the parties’ filings.1 For the reasons that follow, the Board joins the cases, reverses the Hearing Officer’s dismissal of portions of the complaint in Case 07-AC-48 (DA, RP) and the entire complaint in Case 09-AC-10(DA,FM,RP), and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background
Katsouros I
Katsouros was employed by the AOC as a mechanic in the Elevator Shop, and made various Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), retaliation and hostile work environment claims as a result of a ten-day suspension he received in connection with absences from work in April and May of 2007.
In support of his claims, Appellant introduced five medical certifications that he had submitted to the AOC in the form designed by the Department of Labor for use in connection with the Family and Medical Leave Act. The first of these forms was signed by a psychiatrist on September 13, 2006. It stated that Appellant had a serious health condition that was chronic in nature and that he had “episodes of depression and mania.” However, in the September 2006 form, the physician certified that Appellant was “currently not incapable” of working and could “perform all current duties as assigned.” The physician also certified that it would not be necessary for Appellant to take intermittent leave.
