Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Rehabilitation Act, the Second and Eighth Circuits have come to different conclusions. In Faconti v. Potter, the Second Circuit favorably notes the district court’s determination that claims under the CSRS and the Rehabilitation Act cannot functionally co-exist because of their inherent inconsistency. Faconti v. Potter, 242 Fed.Appx. 775, 776 (2d Cir.2007) (precluding a Rehabilitation Act claim after obtaining CSRS benefits because “the requirements for obtaining a [CSRS] disability retirement annuity are wholly inconsistent with the requirements for proving a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act” (quoting Faconti v. Potter, No. 01-cv-1034, slip op. at 17 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2002))); see also Wallace v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 108 F.Supp.2d 716, 719 (S.D.Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). But, in Arneson v. Heckler, the Eight Circuit 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed (B) holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act (C) holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits (D) holding disability discrimination claim barred (E) recognizing that a claim of disability retirement under the csrs precludes a rehabilitation act claim because plaintiffs applying for disability retirement under the csrs must be unable to work even with an accommodation
Output (English): holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act