and manual distribution on this of three of she worked there for eighteen years without any problem with this employee and that she had surgery in two thousand and thirteen to her lady came back to work with  increasing her disability in her feet from thirty percent to ninety percent and continued to work in the other three go mental distribution till february twenty fourth teen when they told her she do the supervisor said you can't work here because it's too strenuous you would think automation is here you go back to medical distribution where they send all the disabled employees to and that was in the early february twenty four teams and the like do recorded there which is critical in this case so you need to bring in another doctors know about your restrictions now they really have the fock from two thousand and six permanent restrictions on standing and walking  they nor that and so she comes back with another doctor's order that continues her restrictions up until may and then they say we need a permanent restriction or not prove that she goes back to the doctor and  reposed it isn't that right yes so i guess i thought i understood what pleasure to come here was asking you was about this change i mean you're telling us about what was happening in the job she was then but then according to this that job sort of terming needed and she had to rebid and she wasn't some liked it for the new position she wasn't she wasn't that's correct however the postal service writing just the letter do not hate that we use the word job they don't jive with the practice of the postal service yes in tampa florida because she was permitted to go back to oath three zero and stay in zero three zero and then when she received the permit restrictions in july until she was walked out like he was informally an employee in zero three at that point all throughout that time she may have been performing or on loan deal with rio or doing job duties there but she was formally employed by automation did was all right so there was this informal arrangement for her to be zero three zero i've never heard them testify that way but they said that was the only place that she could work was in it with real so if the bit was automation and they knew she couldn't and they all stipulated that harry she cannot do the job of automation so that was not a meaningful choice on their beam and that's why they kept her no three zero that august after they receive the permit restrictions again from the v a doctors about her standing and walking based on her surgery and her increased disability they keep her in zero three zero until august they have a meeting with her and they take inhuman to do but at the same time part of the reason behind that is they realised she was being provided with accommodations that she had not applied for and therefore hadn't been justified and what you can imagine as i can as an employer if you make exceptions for one person and they haven't applied for that through the application process the accommodations that they need well suddenly everybody else now wants a chair and everybody else wants light duty and everybody else wants a change so there process in place that if you follow that process you can then be awarded that and that allows the employer to be insulated from all the claims of disparate treatment by other employees who could say well she's got a chair she didn't apply for disability why can't i have a chair do you understand the problem i do but yours why the system is that up there requires her to put forth an application which she kept refusing to do which is why we're here though the agency i'm sor no who's in charge of light duty she just told her to get a doctor's note and then when she saw the permit restrictions she took it upon herself as they do without an application from the employee to apply for reasonable your honor she had reasonable accommodations that she first started in the been sent south for they were they were properly awarded to her through the process which is quite well established within the government for providing accommodations they were provided by human supervisors that made decisions that quite frankly they didn't have the right to do and yet they give them to work which is one thing to very few minutes thing to do right i mean i want to do what you do for my employees but within the rubric of a large organization like the government they have very established processes that must be undertaken why wouldn't you're clearly just filing paperwork i don't understand she was repeatedly asked just filed the paperwork for light duty and she one light duty is voluntary you can't order someone to apply for light duty and number two they all testified all the agency higher ups testified that light duty is not for someone like her with permanent restrictions only drac reason accommodations is n p r no says i gave that track i thought i did and that's all she had to do when it came to reason accommodations no one testified that she had to apply for reason said i'll take care of it well something happened because the drac person still comments never got but more importantly they should never have walked her out and taken her id badge away that she could never get back if she was your styling why when her supervisor gave her the choice of applying for light duty and she refused you were you and said just a minute ago that light duty is not collective bargaining agreement article thirteen states it's voluntary what does that mean that will work that means if you don't want to apply for light duty and do the jobs and suffer physically you don't have to apply for  her to apply for lay duty contrary to the collective bargaining agreement which says it's voluntary and they all testified all the higher ups it's not for someone with permanent restrictions like her so that was never a meaningful choice under being she was sort of in no man's land right well and i think i disagree because she had a job she had forty hours a week she was working the nightshift that nobody wants to work and it was interfering with their diabetes but she kept at it anyway because she was supervisors are contradictory first they say she's not a candidate for light duty and it said six eighteen to six nineteen of the appendix light duty is not for one having permanent they never got that letter a doctor's note and what's interesting is they walk around on october eighteenth the twenty fourteen and she is not permitted to return in the fourteen day period goes by and after the fourteen day agency did something wrong she didn't establish either of those elements at the board and therefore the board correctly determined didn't have jurisdiction to clarify some of the factual  times but that the system that the agency has in place for a permanent accommodation is a reasonable accommodation process which is a separate process for how to go about doing light duty light duty one was that once miss grant submitted the second doctor's letter in july twenty fourth team that made it very clear or go home it would seem like a letter of july twenty four thousand from the doctor had already made it clear that applying for light duty would not make any sense so what is your response to  a couple responses your first of all the letter from july doesn't provide very much information at all it's basically just the same letter that they got april with another clause that says this condition is permanent for either l duty or permit reasonable commendations the agency has responsibility for the employee safety to seek more information and that's what the light duty requests were provided as more information what exactly are your limitations what can you do how long can you do it there's a whole list of information that she's supposed to provide in that light duty request and then it's much more detail for the reasonable comedy chain and the reasonable accommodation first she fills out paperwork that provides all of her limitations what she can do for how long and then that documentation gets sent to her treating physician or treating physician has to go through and provide specifics about the diagnosis and why is that that the options that she was given enough to return in fourteen didn't include the option of filing for reasonable accommodation through the rock your honor i my understanding was that she was she was told she needed ensure you're in the wrong pigeonhole you no longer want to do you belong in the other place is that the way we play though is that what you're telling us your honor she could have been put on light duty while they were assessing the reasonable believe your honor i don't i don't i don't think that there is specific language in the record from october saying that reasonable accommodated that she also needed to request reasonable accommodation so i think that's the problem that  position submit like do the request or go home so i i don't think there's any confusion i don't see anywhere in the board's opinion where she was informed that rather than go home she could also file for reasonable accommodation which would be a totally different thing than the light duty request i think in that moment your honor she she still needed to request light duty because the reasonable committee a shame takes time she has to file that paperwork and the agency has to consider it and they had the option to deny the reasonable commutation as they did in two thousand and thirteen so at that time agency was saying you can't come into manual distribution and sit in a chair and less  light duty you have to request light duty if that's what you want and that's what she was indicating that she wanted to do was sit in a chair in manual distribution they were saying you have to be on like do this and that was correct and and this piano did testify that while it's not ideal to permanently assigned somebody to light duty and sat there i'm sure that a certain point they would have gone through the direct process and as such the permanent situation but she could have continued to request light duty in sequence and she was given a light duty in april i'm sorry mate for a period of three weeks that was their response to the original doctors you know and it's not actually made aware of she she basically just walked in and handed a doctor's note to it to her supervisors and they didn't know what to do with that they did assign her light duty and then she came back with another doctor's note and in the meantime i think the record shows there was a apologies i don't have the exact cite but there was a letter from one of the senior managers that was nosing into some sort of an issue and they said look if you're going to be in a chair a manual distribution you have to be on the light duty list therefore have reasonable accommodation correct your honor and again reasonable commendation is not necessarily going to put her in that chair in manual distribution it could be some kind of a distribution and they told her we don't have anything for you there so you request is denied and so i'm just saying again so when a person request a reasonable accommodation it may be that they can't stay in jobs and that they may have to move to a totally different job which would allow for their limitations or it could be the case that there is no job within the organisation that could work out for them given their limitations reply but that was what i was trying to decipher what the argument was below from the board as well as veterans court there was some relationship with her status as a ten point better and maybe a disabled veteran and and she expressed some kind of concern that applying for light duty would either jeopardize her status as a ten point veteran or alternatively she was already entitle to my duty as a disabled veteran  what was the what's your understanding of her basis my understanding and i know that's true there's no there's no basis for those claims that's a different question the other question is what is the what is the actual argument hundred six doctors you know which was provided to explain that she did have these issues with her feet but also explains and that said appendix one nineteen that she was cleared to work she was cleared to do everything that they had for her to do  ever formally request an accommodation for your feet have you ever saw any kind of formal accommodation for this issue and she admitted that she had not and so i don't the job that gives you a preference over other people planking is a minor where in the record she indicated that she had never made a reasonable accommodation request or a light duty request with respect to her foot condition that again the doctors you know not doctors no as far as what the agency has to offer it's not sufficient for her to just go and choose for herself to go sit in manual just abuse and put address if you argue in the same sentence about the fact that he holds the belief that he's because she has a ten point advantage for veteran she's guaranteed a forty hour work week even if she can't perform the full duties so i guess my question to you is is that true if if you're a ten point preference veteran and if you need reasonable accommodations because of an injury are you guaranteed a forty hour work week is the government prohibited from moving eighty six when she applied for the job she was originally able to do the forty hour work week and do all the manual labor they were asking her to do so  it seems that her claim that this status ten point status really had nothing to do with whether or not she was able to do the work that they were asking her to do my understand agency is not i mean in tw agency denied her request reasonable accommodation at that place she had the opportunity i mean she quit she could've quit working at that point but you know the agency is not the gate it's to keep somebody the ten point veteran status has only one thing it requires a thirty day notice under the collective bargaining agreement before you forces a veteran out they have to be given thirty days notice and they went she was never given any nose whatsoever but that that assumes the conclusion that she was forced out what we're trying to figure out here is whether she was given a meaningful choice an october twenty fourth of an option of applying for like respond when she needed to she didn't make a big deal about that and she continued to work the thing about like duty is they pee or no and the union representative had a meeting in february and they put him on light duty her biggest thing was i never requested fine but as february twenty fourth teen she's on my duty and her status never changed so one pure no hands this letter of july twenty fourth team with more restrictions that are now classified against permit if they don't there's no reason to shorten already had her on light duty nothing's changed all of that was at that point in form and so now they want to get things regulated on the books and book and have paperwork to justify it's not duty it's not informal because they had a meeting in february twenty fourth jane they determined she's on light duty then and they gave her that letter that you're on light duty and go get this doctor t and they said get another doctor's note and so she did and she handed it to him and they took that they gave her no more instructions so they forced her out on october eighteenth without any religious written structures without a thirty day notice that again this all goes back to the option that they gave her which was please apply for life if you can for whatever reason she elected not to apply for like you and the click the bargaining agreement says if you're forced out of it but i'd