FINAL DECISION
This matter came for a hearing on plaintiff’s two counts of disability discrimination and one count of workplace retaliation. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief, one of the counts of disability discrimination was resolved in favor of the Employing Office on its motion for judgment as a matter of law. On the remaining two counts, I have carefully reviewed and considered the testimony of the witnesses adduced at the hearing, the exhibits introduced into evidence, the arguments of counsel and the entire record herein and conclude that plaintiff has proved one count of disability discrimination (failure to provide reasonable accommodation), but has failed to prove the count of retaliation. Accordingly, judgment must be entered in part for the plaintiff and in part for the Employer for the reasons that follow.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Mary Schiappa, filed a Request for Counseling on August 31, 2011 claiming that she was a qualified individual with a disability who was denied multiple requests for reasonable accommodation for injuries she received on the job. She claims that her requests did not impose an undue hardship on the Employing Office, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). In addition, she claims that her requests were denied in retaliation for protected activity – that is, her testimony on behalf of two coworkers in their equal employment claims against the AOC. She seeks as remedies: the right to work while seated in a wheelchair as a reasonable accommodation, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. 1
The AOC denies the claims, arguing that when plaintiff made requests for accommodation, it appropriately engaged in an interactive dialogue with her about her needs and medical status. It contends that accommodations were provided to address plaintiff’s injuries while allowing her to perform her duties. In addition, the AOC states that reasonable accommodations were delayed only to the extent that plaintiff did not provide adequate medical support for her requests. Lastly, the AOC argues that plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her job and her requested accommodation would have caused undue hardship to her coworkers and the operations of the CVC.
