07A00033
09-05-2003
James C. Boland, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
James C. Boland v. Department of Transportation
07A00033
09-05-03
.
James C. Boland,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 07A00033
Agency No. DOT-6-96-056
Hearing No. 370-97-2915X
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Following its May 23, 2000 final order, the agency filed a timely appeal
which the Commission accepts pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. On appeal,
the agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of an EEOC
Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding that the agency discriminated against
complainant on the basis of his disability. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether complainant was discriminated against based on his disability
(chronic tension headaches and chronic gastritis) when: (1) his requests
for reassignment as a reasonable accommodation were denied on November
12, 1995 and February 23, 1996, as a result of which, he was forced to
terminate his employment for health reasons in March 1996; and (2) his
supervisor, D-3, allegedly harassed him regarding his sick leave usage,
issued him a sick leave abuse letter on September 26, 1995, and allegedly
told him, on September 28, 1995, that he intended to have him fired.
BACKGROUND
At the time these matters arose, complainant worked as an Air Traffic
Control Specialist (ATCS). On November 30, 1995, he filed a formal EEO
complaint with the agency, which alleged that he was discriminated
against based on his disability (chronic tension headaches and
chronic gastritis) in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an AJ.
A hearing was held in June and July 1999. On February 15, 2000, the AJ
issued a decision finding discrimination.<1> This appeal followed.
Complainant was hired by the Federal Aviation Administration in June 1989,
at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center. In February 1994,
he received a hardship transfer to a facility in Oakland, California.
In January 1995, he began experiencing severe headaches that caused nausea
and dizziness and which interfered with his ability to concentrate. After
speaking to his doctor, complainant asked to be taken off the control
room floor because of his symptoms, and because his doctor prescribed
medications which disqualified him from controlling air traffic.
Complainant was temporarily reassigned to the Training Department,
effective February 5, 1995. Complainant performed administrative
duties, such as, assisting instructors and updating training manuals.
In February 1995, complainant had his annual agency physical exam,
but was not cleared to perform air traffic control duties.
Complainant worked in the Training Department from February through
October 1995. He continued to experience headaches which required the
use of sick leave. In July 1995, it was determined that his headaches
were caused by work-related stress. In April 1995, complainant also
began experiencing severe stomach pains. Medical tests, conducted from
June through October 1995, determined that he suffered from gastritis
due to stress. Over the course of the summer, he continued experiencing
severe stomach pain, severe headaches, nausea, vomiting and the inability
to concentrate. He used large amounts of sick leave and visited the
emergency room several times.
Complainant provided agency officials with doctor's notes, dated February
8 and 21, 1995. These notes indicated that complainant was suffering from
nausea, vertigo, fever and headache due to severe sinusitis, allergies
and/or inner ear and sinus infections. The notes also listed the
medications prescribed for him. Complainant also provided a May 5, 1995
doctor's note stating that he had been diagnosed with the beginnings of
a gastric ulcer, and a June 16, 1995 note outlining the treatment for the
allergy problems and the stomach pain associated with the ulcer. In July,
D-1, the Training Department supervisor, met with complainant to discuss
his sick leave usage and requested additional medical documentation.
At some point during the summer, D-2 became complainant's supervisor in
the Training Department. He met with D-1 to discuss, among other things,
complainant's sick leave usage. There was a concern by both D-1 and D-2
that complainant was using a great deal of leave on Mondays and Fridays
and that a possible sick leave abuse pattern was forming.
In August 1995, D-2 had a meeting with complainant and others to discuss
his sick leave usage. D-2 indicated that there was a possibility that
a sick leave abuse letter would be issued because of complainant's
pattern of leave usage and because his absences had not been documented
to management's satisfaction. D-2 maintained that although complainant
indicated that he would provide documentation from his doctor, no such
documentation was provided to him while he was complainant's supervisor.
He also noted that same pattern of sick leave usage observed by D-1.
Complainant stated that he submitted a note from his Doctor, dated August
10, 1995, which indicated that he was undergoing a diagnostic work-up,
and that his symptoms were caused by or increased by work-related stress.
The letter also stated that complainant may be unable to work a full
schedule or at full capacity until the diagnosis and treatment were
completed. The note indicated that the office was compiling all of
complainant's test results and consult reports, some of which were
still pending.
In August 1995, D-3 became the Assistant Manager for Training and took
over as complainant's supervisor. D-3 was briefed on complainant's
situation and met with him on August 24, 1995. D-3 felt, based on
his review of complainant's sick leave records, that he was abusing
sick leave. In September 1995, complainant's stomach problems and
headaches became worse, and, in September 1995, he began vomiting blood.
However, effective September 22, 1995, complainant's medical clearance
was reinstated. Therefore, he was cleared to return to performing
ATC duties. The clearance indicated, however, that complainant could
not perform safety-related (radar) functions within 24 hours of taking
certain medications.
On September 26, 1995, D-3 issued complainant a sick leave abuse letter.
According to the letter, complainant had failed to provide requested
medical information, his sick leave usage had not improved, and noted that
he had not worked the preceding eight Fridays. Complainant was required
to visit a doctor on the first day of any absence and to furnish medical
documentation to substantiate any claim that he was incapacitated for
duty. On September 28, 1995, complainant called D-3 at home to request
sick leave. He explained that he had been in the emergency room the
night before and would require sick leave. According to complainant,
he was told by D-3 that he, D-3, was going to push complainant �out the
door� and intended to have him fired. D-3 denied making the statements
attributed to him. In his affidavit, however, he acknowledged saying
�if I had my way I would fire him.� Complainant provided a note from
his doctor which indicated that he �continues to have symptoms relating
to his ulcer/gastritis and chronic headaches.� His doctor opined that
minimizing work stress or consecutive days exposed to it was the best
way to reduce his symptoms.
In October 1995, complainant began performing his ATC duties, with the
exception of safety-related functions. Complainant's supervisor was now
A-1. A-1 assigned him to the position of air traffic assistant because
of the medication that he was taking. An air traffic assistant retrieves
flight information data strips from a flight progress printer and relays
them to the appropriate radar controller. A-1 decided to keep the sick
leave abuse letter in effect because it had been issued recently, and he
had not had a chance to evaluate the situation himself. On October 15,
1995, complainant's doctor prepared the promised comprehensive report on
complainant's medical condition. The report indicated that complainant
suffered from work-related stress which caused chronic tension headaches
and chronic gastritis with acute flare-ups. Complainant gave this report
to A-1. Complainant sought to have the sick leave abuse letter rescinded,
but was unsuccessful.
In November 1995, complainant gave A-1 a note from his doctor indicating
that he had an acute flare-up of a recurrent ulcer, and which suggested
part-time administrative work at a facility closer to his home.
Complainant also gave A-1 a written request for part-time work and
temporary reassignment to a facility closer to his home. A-1 promised
to respond at a later date. On December 21, 1995, complainant met with
the Regional Flight Surgeon, B-1, and his Deputy, B-2. According to
complainant, the three came to the conclusion that it would be best
for complainant to transfer to a less stressful facility closer to
his house. Subsequently, complainant notified B-2 that he wanted to
pursue the transfer. B-1 and B-2 participated in a teleconference with
A-1 and recommended that complainant, at least on a temporary basis,
be transferred. According to A-1, a decision was made to first try
to accommodate complainant with a temporary part-time schedule and to
wait before addressing the reassignment request until they saw whether
the schedule change would alleviate the stress-induced symptoms.
A-1 indicated that no decision was made whether reassignment would be
allowed if the part-time schedule was not successful.
On January 12, 1996, the agency offered complainant temporary, part-time
administrative work in the quality assurance department at the Oakland
facility. These duties would last for 30 days.
Complainant discussed the offer with A-1, and told him that he wanted a
reassignment to a less stressful facility and a leave of absence until
the transfer could be obtained. According to complainant, A-1 was not
willing to pursue the transfer at that time and asked him to submit a
proposed part-time schedule. Although complainant submitted the schedule,
he requested a leave of absence. On January 22, 1996, a six-week leave of
absence was approved by A-1. A-1 also indicated that, upon complainant's
return, his transfer request would be considered if it were necessary.
After six weeks of leave, complainant felt that his symptoms had improved.
He feared, however, that his symptoms would return if he went back
to the Oakland facility; therefore, he submitted a second request for
reassignment on February 23, 1996, and told A-1 that he would resign if
his request was not granted. A-1, maintaining that it was not possible
to evaluate complainant's medical progress, reach a decision regarding
reassignment, and effectuate a transfer in such a short period of time,
did not respond to complainant's letter. According to A-1, he intended
to talk with complainant about the matter upon his return. A-1 admitted
that he never spoke with any manager who could have approved complainant's
reassignment request after receiving complainant's letter. In March 1996,
complainant resigned without ever returning to work.
The AJ found that complainant was a person with a disability because
his chronic, severe headaches and gastritis caused dizziness, nausea and
vomiting which were incapacitating for about three or four days a week.
The AJ noted that these symptoms interfered with complainant's ability
to concentrate and, were of such severity and frequency to be disabling
under the Rehabilitation Act.<2> Next, the AJ found that he demonstrated
that he was a qualified individual with a disability because he could
perform the essential functions of the ATC position with accommodation.
The AJ noted complainant's testimony that he could perform ATC duties at
a lower level, less stressful facility, such as San Carlos or Palo Alto,
if he were granted a leave of absence so that his symptoms would abate
and he could discontinue his disqualifying medication.<3>
The AJ found that although the agency made an effort to accommodate
complainant in his existing job, these accommodations were not effective
since complainant continued to experience debilitating symptoms and was
unable to resume his ATC duties. Therefore, the AJ found that complainant
could not be accommodated in the Oakland ATC job and the agency should
have considered reassignment. According to the AJ, the agency never
gave serious consideration to reassigning complainant. Instead, he was
offered a part-time work schedule at the Oakland facility for 30 days.
The AJ indicated that there was no reason to believe that a part-time
schedule of 30 days would have alleviated complainant's symptoms.
The AJ further found that:
[D]espite a doctor's note advising reassignment and recommendation of the
FAA's own doctor that complainant be reassigned, complainant's managers
never actually explored reassignment as an option and never explained
the basis for the decision not to do so. In fact, the individual with
the authority to reassign the complainant, [the Facility Chief] was not
even included in the meeting held in January 1996 to discuss how best
to accommodate complainant. Complainant's supervisor, [A-1], testified
that reassignment for medical reasons could take a year or longer. [A-1]
further testified that after receiving complainant's February 23, 1996
letter stating that he would resign if the agency could not transfer him,
[A-1] did not even speak with anyone who could have approved complainant's
reassignment. [A-1] also made no effort to contact complainant to discuss
the situation with him. In essence, the evidence indicates that from
November 1995, when the initial request for reassignment was made through
March 1996, when complainant resigned, no manager made any inquiry into
whether a lower level facility in the area had any openings.
Thus, the AJ concluded that complainant was denied a reasonable
accommodation.
With respect to complainant's claim that he was discriminated against
based on disability because of management's repeated inquiries about his
sick leave usage, the issuance of a sick leave abuse letter and threats
of termination due to his sick leave usage, the AJ noted complainant's
testimony that, until he resigned, his supervisors questioned him
repeatedly regarding his absences and medical documentation. Because he
was undergoing testing for months to determine the cause of his symptoms,
the AJ found that complainant was not immediately able to provide
documentation regarding the cause of his symptoms or his prognosis
when such documentation was requested. Several supervisors questioned
whether anything was wrong with complainant and accused him of abusing
his sick leave. His first supervisor in the Training Department, D-1,
told him that there was nothing medically wrong with him and that,
if he did not provide medical documentation to substantiate his use of
sick leave, he would be forced to take administrative action. D-3 told
him that he did not want him using any more sick leave and that he had
to work five days a week.
The AJ noted complainant's testimony that his supervisors refused to
accept medical documentation that had been offered.<4> The AJ also found
credible complainant's claim that D-3 told him that he intended to have
him fired. Therefore, the AJ found that complainant was discriminated
against. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ focused on the fact that the
agency refused to consider complainant's request for reassignment, asked
for medical documentation and then refused to accept what was provided,
repeatedly questioned complainant's absences in a demeaning manner,
erroneously characterized his sick leave history,<5> chastised him about
using his sick leave and deliberately created conditions which forced
complainant to resign. Upon finding discrimination, the AJ ordered that
complainant be reinstated to a position as an ATC specialist at a level
two facility, provided that he received the required medical clearance.
He also ordered back pay including interest, and benefits from the
date complainant resigned in March 1996 until the effective date of
his disability retirement, and compensatory damages in the amount of
$35,000.00 for emotional distress. The AJ also awarded attorney fees
and issued a separate decision on this point.
On appeal, the agency argues that complainant was not a qualified person
with a disability because it was unlikely that his symptoms could have
been alleviated to the point where he could have performed the essential
functions of the level two ATC position, the position he asked for, or
any position. The agency noted, for example, that complainant testified
that he could not tolerate bright lights or movement when he had severe
headaches and that an ATC specialist in a small facility must work
in a bright tower and must move to watch aircraft out of the windows.
The agency also maintained that it made good faith efforts to accommodate
complainant and that complainant was not constructively discharged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.� Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under
either a disparate treatment and/or a failure to accommodate theory,
the complainant must demonstrate that: (1) he is an "individual with
a disability"; (2) he is "qualified" for the position held or desired;
(3) he was subjected to an adverse personnel action under circumstances
giving rise to an inference of disability discrimination and/or denied a
reasonable accommodation. Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th
Cir. 2001). EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g) defines an individual
with a disability as one who: 1) has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities,
2) has a record of such impairment, or 3) is regarded as having such an
impairment. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(h)(2)(i) defines"major
life activities" as including the functions of caring for one's self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning, and working.
The AJ found that complainant was an individual with a disability because
his symptoms interfered with his ability to concentrate. For purposes
of this decision, we shall assume, arguendo, that complainant did in
fact establish that he was an individual with a disability covered by
the Rehabilitation Act. Complainant must also show, however, that
he is a "qualified" individual with a disability within the meaning
of 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). This section defines the term �qualified
individual with a disability� as meaning, with respect to employment,
a disabled person who, with or without a reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired.
Based upon our review, we conclude that complainant did not establish
that he was a qualified individual with a disability with respect to
the denial of his reassignment requests.<6>
The complainant has an evidentiary burden in such reassignment cases to
establish that it is more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
that there were vacancies in November 1995 and February 1996, into
which complainant could have been reassigned. Clearly, complainant
can establish this by producing evidence of particular vacancies.
Hampton v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01986308 (July
31, 2002). However, this is not the only way of meeting complainant's
evidentiary burden. In the alternative, complainant need only show that:
(1) he was qualified to perform a job or jobs which existed at the agency,
and (2) that there were trends or patterns of turnover in the relevant
jobs so as to make a vacancy likely during the time period. Id.
Complainant did not establish that there were any vacancies at a level two
facility at the time he made his requests for reassignment. According
to the record, there were no inquiries made as to the availability of
vacancies because A-1 decided to wait until complainant returned to
work before exploring reassignment. Likewise, he has not provided any
evidence to support an inference that, had the agency searched at the
relevant time, it would have found a vacant position to which he could
have been reassigned. We note in this regard that, although complainant
had the skills to perform the ATC jobs that existed at the agency,
there is no evidence in the record of trends or patterns of turnover
that would indicate that a vacancy was likely during the time period.
Consequently, we find that complainant did not establish his claim that
the agency failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation.
With respect to Issue 2, it is well-settled that harassment based on an
individual's disability is actionable. See Meritor Savings Bank FSB
v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), Fox v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d
169 (4th Cir. 2001). In order to establish a claim of harassment,
the complainant must show that: (1) he is a qualified individual
with a disability covered under the Rehabilitation Act; (2) he was
subjected to unwelcome conduct; (3) the harassment complained of was
based on his disability; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interfering with his work performance and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a
basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Flowers v. Southern
Reg'l Physician Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Fox
v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001). The harasser's
conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable
person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris
v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
Looking at these incidents as a whole, we are not convinced that the
record contains substantial evidence to support the AJ's determination
that the alleged harassment complained of was based on complainant's
disability. The AJ's finding of discrimination here was, in part, based
on her finding that the agency �refused to consider complainant's requests
for reassignment.� As noted above, the agency was under no obligation
to reassign complainant because there was no evidence that there
were any vacancies at the time he made his requests for reassignment.
Moreover, we find that, during his tenure in the Training Department,
complainant's supervisors had reasonable concerns about his sick leave
usage. In light of these concerns, his supervisors questioned him
regarding his absences and the lack of supporting medical documentation.
Unfortunately, complainant was unable to provide documentation regarding
the cause of his symptoms or his prognosis for several months. This delay
was a source of concern by management and there was an exacerbation of
complainant's existing symptoms.
The Commissions regulations provide that an employer may ask an
individual for reasonable documentation about his/her disability
and functional limitations. Enforcement Guidance at pgs 12-13.
The employer is entitled to know that the individual has a covered
disability for which s/he needs a reasonable accommodation. Id.<7>
Although one could make the argument that complainant's managers could
have exercised greater patience, there is no evidence that D-1, D-2, or
D-3 sought to discriminate against complainant because of his disability.
Prior to receiving the October 15, 1995 report from complainant's doctor,
management operated under the mistaken belief that complainant was not
disabled, but was in fact abusing sick leave.
CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the record, including contentions on appeal
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we AFFIRM the agency's May 23, 2000 final order finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as
the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head
or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and
official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your
case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
__09-05-03________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1Although the AJ's decision was issued on February 15, 2000, she informed
the agency that the 40-day time limitation period for filing an appeal
with the Commission would not begin until she issued a second decision
concerning attorney's fees. The second decision was issued on April
24, 2000.
2The AJ also noted that complainant's medication did not mitigate his
disability. He indicated that several of the medications complainant took
caused side effects such as lightheadedness, drowsiness and dizziness.
3According to complainant, a level two facility was much less stressful
than a level five facility such as Oakland. The ATCs control smaller
aircraft by looking out the window of a tower. There are fewer planes;
therefore, the use of radar is not required.
4On October 13, 1995, complainant met with D-3, a union representative
and the Assistant Air Traffic Manager, GS. At the meeting, complainant
asked that the sick leave abuse letter be rescinded. After providing
certain medical documents to GS, complainant offered to retrieve a larger
stack of �similar� documents from his car. According to complainant,
GS looked at the documents that he had with him, however, he declined
to see the papers from his car.
5Management, in maintaining that complainant was abusing his sick leave,
argued that he often took leave on Mondays. The AJ noted, however,
that the agency's sick leave records established that complainant used
more sick leave toward the end of the week, but that he did not use as
much on Mondays. This supported complainant's claim that his symptoms
became worse after several consecutive days of work.
6 The agency is advised that 29 C.F.R. � 1614.203(g), which governed
and limited the obligation of reassignment in the Federal sector, has
been superseded and no longer applies. 67 Fed. Reg. 35732 (5/21/02), to
be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.203(b). The ADA standards apply to all
conduct on or after June 20, 2002, and emphasize, among other things, a
broader search for a vacancy. The ADA regulations regarding reassignment
can be found at 29 C.F.R. �� 1630.2(o) and 1630.9. Additional information
can be found in the Appendix to the ADA regulations and in the EEOC's
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (March 1, 1999, as revised, October
17, 2002) at Questions 25-31 (Enforcement Guidance). These documents
are available on the EEOC's website at www.eeoc.gov.
7Reasonable documentation means that the employer may require only the
documentation that is needed to establish that a person has a disability,
and that the disability necessitates a reasonable accommodation.
Enforcement Guidance at page 13.