I^IP^. /^^g^m^ . ^-^-.j^Mp,.. y^M^mm- ' ^ : 4 ^fKf^' ^"^M^/tll^' ^-^'i i 

L^^». ' *^^*. * *^^*. - *^^* *#-* ' *•.-* . •*# 

PersocmelAppeads! 

tt 

GAD 
Letter 

1 Personne l 

Appeals 

Boar d April 30,2004 

The Honorable David M. Walker 

Comptroller General 

United States General Accounting Office 

Room 7000 

441 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

Pursuant to the authority granted to it under thc General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 

19S0, the Personnel Appeals Board has statutory responsibility to oversee equal employment 

opportunity at GAO. In exercise of that authority, the Board is issuing the attached report on 

reasonable accommodation at GAO. The Board's conclusions and recommendations are 

contained in the attached report. 

Sincerely, 

Anne M. Wagner 

Chair 

attachment 

U. S. General AccoimUng Office • Suilc 560 • Union Cenler Plaza II • WaKhingion. D.C, 20548 • Phone (202) 512-6137 
Contents 

Table of Contents 

Personnel Appeals Board and Staff 3 

Chapter I: 

Introduction 4 

Background 4 

Jurisdiction 5 

Methodology 6 

Chapter II: 

Recent Executive Branch Initiatives 7 

Reasonable Accommodation 7 

Chapter III: 

GAO's Policies and Practices 11 

Reasonable Accommodation Under GAO Order 2306.1 11 

Executive Order 13164 and GAO's Practices 12 

Chapter IV: 

Conclusions and Recommendations 16 

The Board Studies 16 

Board Recommendations 16 

Conclusion 18 

Appendix I: 

Response From the Agency 19 

Appendix II: 

Response From the Advisory Council For Persons With Disabilities 20 

Appendix III: 

Board Comments on the ACPD Letter 25 
Contents 

<£P ersonnel Appeals Board and Staff 

PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD 

Anne M. Wagner 

Michael Doheny 

John P. Mahoney 

Chair 

Vice-Chair 

Member 

STAFF 

Beth L. Don 

M. GaU Gerebenics 

Susan P. Inzeo 

Sue Sung Farley 

Patricia Reardon-Kini 

Executive Director 

Director, EEO Oversight 

Solicitor 

Staff Attomey 

Clerk of the Board 
Chapter 1 

G^ ntroduction 

BACKGROUND 

In 1990, the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB or the Board) issued a report entitled EEO Ovet'sigkt Study 

of GAO's Employment of People With Disabilities. Among the issues that the report addressed were the 

accessibility of the General Accounting Office's (GAO or the Agency) facilities, the provision of 

reasonable accommodation to GAO employees and applicants, recruitment and hiring, supervisory 

training, and affirmative action for persons with disabilities. The Board's report contained the conclusions 

it reached in the study as well as 12 very specific recommendations to the Agency to assist in its 

development of a viable prograin for persons with disabilities. 

In 1993, the Board conducted a follow-up study to detennine whether, and to what extent, GAO had 

implemented the Board's recommendations from the 1990 report. In the follow-up report, issued in 

January 1994, the Board tracked GAO's responses and acti\1ties with respect to each of the 12 

recommendations over the three year period since the initial report, concluding that, overall, GAO had 

complied with nearly all of the recommendations.' The Board and Agency management could not agree 

on one crucial issue, as GAO clearly indicated that it had decided not to follow the Board's 

recommendation that it establish a database to track reasonable accommodation requests. On behalf of 

the Agency, the then-Deputy Assistant Comptroller Generai for Human Resources agreed to consider the 

matter further even though she stated that Agency management continued to believe that establishment 

of such a database could "discourage some employees from making a request."^ GAO indicated in June 

2003 that it does intend to create a centralized database to track requests for reasonable 

accommodation.* According to the Agency, the database, which will be maintained by Recruitment and 

Employment Services in the Human Capital Office (HCO), will include the same information that the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires Executive branch agencies to collect.^ 

Since the issuance of the Board's follow-up report, there have been a number of significant Supreme 

Court decisions^' interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act, which specifically applies to GAO.^ 

' Fallmv-Up Rf*j)orl lo FEO Oversight Study o/GAO'.s Employment of Persons with Di.^abilitics (hereaflir Foliow-Up Report). Because the 

earlier study was conducted prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 42 U.S.C. §§12201-14, the follow-up 

reporl did not address GAO's policies or practices with respect to the ADA aiul that law's applicability to various .\gency [jrogranis. 

~ Ix'tter from Joan M. Dodaro. Deputy Assistiint Comptroller General for Human Resources, G.^O, p. 2 (Dee. 14, 1993). The then-President of 

the Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities (ACPD) noted that his organization strongly supported the establishment of a database lo 

track reasonahle accommodation requests. Memorandum from R. Tim Baden, President, ACDP, p. 4 (Dec. 14, 1993). These communications 

can be found in the Board's Folloiv-Up Report, Appendices I and II, respectively. The PAB's Office of EEO Oversight reports can be found on 

Ihe Board's web sile, www.pab.gao.gov. 

•' Letier from Jesse E. Hoskins. Human Capital Officer GAO, Attachment 1, p. 10 (June 27, 2003) (Hereafter cited as Hoskins Letter (0/27/03)1. 

' Information that must be maintained includes: number and types of requests; gradp and position; approvals and denials; rea.sons for denials; 

processing time for each request; sources of technical assistance, if any, used to identify possible accommodations. 

• Ser. r.i}.. Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Kentucky i). WiUiams, r>34 U.S. 184 (2002); U.S. Airtvays i>. Bamett, 535 T.S. 391 (2002); Cherron 

USA V. Erhaziihal. ;336 U.R. 73 (2002) 

•• 42 U.S.C. S1220i-)(c}(4). 
Chapter 1 

In addition, purstiant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973/ President Clinton issued Executive Order 13164 

in 2000, requiring Executive branch agencies to establish procedm-es "to facilitate the provision of 

reasonable accommodation."^ That Order requires agencies to have written procedures for processing 

requests for reasonable accommodation that are to include the following: 

(1) an explanation that requests raay be oral or in writing; 

(2) an explanation of the agency's procedures for processing a request, including 

identification of the person who will make the final decision; 

(3) the designation of a time period for granting or denying the request; 

(4) an explanation of the employee's responsibiUty to provide appropriate medical 

information; 

(5) an explanation of the circumstances in which an agency may request 

supplemental medical information, as well as the right of an agency to have medical 

information reviewed by an expert of its choice; 

(6) a provision allowing reassignment to be considered as a reasonable 

acconunodation under certain circumstances; 

(7) a provision specifying that a denial of a request should be in writing and include 

the reasons for the denial; 

(8) a system of recordkeeping to track the processing of requests for reasonable 

accommodation; and, 

(9) practices that encourage the use of informal dispute resolution to ensure 

prompt reconsideration of denials of requests. 

The EEOC has also issued numerous directives, instructions, and policy and enforcement guidance 

manuals to assist agencies with disability issues, in general, and in implementing the Executive Order. 

GAO Orders 2713.1 and 2713.2 set eeo policy and govem the discrimination complaint process for the 

Agency, respectively. GAO Order 2306.1, revised in 1999, governs employment of individuals with 

disabilities; Order 2339.1, Medical Determinations, was revised in 2000, subsequent to Executive Order 

13164. 

JURISDICTION 

With passage of the General Accoimting Office Persoimel Act of 1980 (GAOPA), Congress gave the 

Board ". . . the same authority over oversight and appeals matters as an executive agency has over 

• 29 U.S.C. §701. GAO has always maintained that the Rehabilitation Act, does not apply to it, citing the non-discrimination language in 

§791Cb): "Each department, agency and instrumentality (including the United States Postal Serviee and the Postal Rate Commission) in the 

executive br^ich . . ." (emphasis added). Agency representatives, however, have consistently stated to the Board that GAO has always 

been guided by the substantive provisions of the Act. Memorandum from James F. Hinchman, General Counsel, GAO (Apr. 5, 1990). Dowd v. 

GAO, p. 5; n. 30 at p. 11 (2/24/92). 

' Exec. Order No. 13164, 65 F.R. 46565 (2000), repHnted in 29 U.S.C. §791. See also, 29 U.S.C. §791(g), a 1992 amendment to the 

Rehabilitation Act that incorporated the employment provisions of the ADA into the Rehabilitation Act so that the ADA provisions could be 

consistently applied and made applicable to Execulive branch employees. 
Chapter 1 

oversight and appeals matters."'' Pursuant to that grant of authority, the Board conducts oversight of 

GAO employment regulations, procedures and practices relating to laws prohibiting discrimination in 

employment through a process of review and assessment that the Board performs through the conduct of 

studies and the preparation of evaluative reports containing its findings, conclusions and 

recommendations.'" 

METHODOLOGY 

This study commenced with Board staff submitting written questions and requests for data to the 

Human Capital Office about how the Agency handles requests for and provides reasonable 

accommodation to persons with disabihties. In its request, the Board sought information about Agency 

policies, practices, and processes with respect to reasonable accommodation, as well as specific data on 

requests that had been fulfllled and those that had been denied. However, due to the fact that the Agency 

has not yet established a database to track requests for and denials of reasonable accommodation, 

information provided was anecdotal in nature. 

The Board also reviewsed Executive Orders, EEOC policy and enforcement guidance documents, and 

recent case law in the areas of discrimination on the basis of disability and reasonable accommodation. 

•' 31 U.S.C. i^732(f)(2)(A). 

'" 4 (.'.KR. i!?f28.!ll, 28.92. Recent PAB Office of EEO Oversight reporis have included studies of GAO's Office of Opportunity and 

Inclusiveness, the Setting uf Pay Hates and Probalionar>' Periods at GAO. and Minorily Recruitment. 
(M 

Chapter 2 

ecent Executive Branch Initiatives 

REASONABLE ACCOMMODAnON 

The Americans with Disabilities Act, a statute designed to eliminate discrimination against persons with 

disabilities, was enacted in 1990; Titie I of that Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on 

disability.^^ To achieve the goal of eradicating disabihty-based employment discrimination, the Act 

requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to the "known physical or mental limitations of 

an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an apphcant or employee" '^ unless the employer 

can show that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business in 

question. ^^ Such accommodations can be defined as the reasonable modification or ai^ustment of the 

workplace environment that enables an employee or applicant, who has established that he or she is a 

person with a disability who is qualified to do a job, to perform the essential functions of the position.''* 

Executive Order 12067 gives the responsibility for enforcement of all Federal statutes. Executive 

orders, regulations and pohcies relating to equal employment opportunity in the Executive branch of the 

Federal govemment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.*^ To execute that mandate as it 

relates to discrimination based on disability, the EEOC has, over the years, issued a series of directives 

on reasonable accommodation that are designed to provide guidance to the Federal sector in addressing 

disability issues and interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.'® 

According to the EEOC, providing reasonable accommodation serves two fundamental goals; removing 

workplace barriers that prevent people with disabilities from performing jobs for which they are qualified 

and expanding the pool of qualified applicants through affiimative conduct that promotes the employment 

of people with disabihties.'^ 

EEOC's implementing regulations for the Americans with Disabihties Act contain three categories of 

reasonable accommodations in its seminal definition of the term: 

i'42 U.S.C. §12112Ca). 

1^42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5)(A). The ADA defmes a qualified individual with a disability as an "individual with a disabUity who, with or without 

reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position." 42 U.S.C. §12111(8). 

"^ Undue hardship means that providing the accommodation would result in sigmficant difficulty or expense to the employer. It also refers to 

accommodations that would be unduly costly, extensive, substantial or disruptive or that would fundamentally alter the nature of business 

operations. 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 App. §1630.2(p). 

1*Disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more injyor life activities; having a record of such 

impairment; or, being regarded as having such impairment. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2 (g)Cl)-(3). 

'^Exec. Order No. 12067, 43 F.R. 28967 (1978), repHnted i n 42 U.S.C. §2000e. In FY 2002, the EEOC received 15,964 charges alleging 

discrimination on the basis of disability, 18.9% of all charges filed that year. Charge Statistics Prom tke U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, FY 1992 Through FY 2002. In the Federal sector, complaints based on disability comprised 14.9% of aU complaints filed in FY 

2002. 

'^See e.g., Revised Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(Updated October 2002); Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable 

Accommodation (October 2000); Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Enftployees Under Uie 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (July 2000); EEOC Eiforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric 

Disabilities (March 1997). 

^^Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164, p.2 (October 20, 2000). 
Chapter 2 

(1) The term reasonable accom,modation means: 

(i) Modifications or adjustments to a job application process that enable a qualified 

apphcant with a disability to be considered for the position such qualified applicant 

desires; or 

(ii) Modifications or at^ustments to the work environment, or to the maimer or 

circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that 

enable a qualified individual to perform the essential functions of the position; or 

(iii) Modifications or at^ustments that enable a covered entity's employee with a disability 

to eryoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly 

situated employees without disabilities.'^ 

There are any number of reasonable accommodations that employers may be required to provide in 

order to enable a person with a disabihty to perform certain job functions. The Americans with 

Disabilities Act contains a non-inclusive list of the most common types of accommodations: 

Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant 

position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or 

modifications of examinations, training materials or pohcies, the pro"vision of qualified 

readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities.'^ 

Whtie the ADA estabUshes the perimeters of the process for enabling people with disabihties to 

compete in the workplace, the EEOC has fleshed out the details in a series of comprehensive and factspecific documents that address issues raised by the necessarily flexible, case-by-case approach that this 

area of the law demands.^** For example, in its Enforcement Guidance, the EEOC lays out the steps that 

an employee must follow when requesting a reasonable accommodation, reminding agencies that 

requests need not be in writing, do not have to mention the ADA or use the phrase "reasonable 

accommodation" and, may be made by a third person on behalf of an individual with a disabihty.^' 

The EEOC also mandates that, subsequent to a request for reasonable acconunodation, an employerinitiated dialogue between the employee and appropriate official ensue that, at a minimum, should include 

a description of the problem caused by the particular workplace barrier and suggestions from both 

parties about what accommodation may be needed to remove a particular barrier^ During this period of 

commimication, the burden of determining the most appropriate accommodation rests with the employer; 

the burden of demonstrating that disability is the reason for an inability to perform essential functions of a 

|«29 C.FR. §1630.2(o)(l). 

'"42 U.S.C. §121I1(9)(B). 

^29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 App. §1630. ". . . the determination of whether an individual is qualified for a particular position must necessarily be 

made on a case-by-case basis. No specific form of accommodation is guaranteed for all individuals with a particular disability." Id. 

^^Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with DisabUities Act. pps. 5-7 (hereafter 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance). 

""Id., p.7. 
Chapter 2 

position is the employee's.^ Even with an ongoing dialogue, however, the EEOC makes clear that time 

limits for providing accommodations should be as short as reasonably possible and, if the requested 

accommodation is simple or straightforward, an employer should, absent undue hardship, provide it 

immediately.^'' 

In addition, the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance explains that the employer is entitled to ask an 

employee to provide documentation about the disabihty in question and any functional limitations it 

imposes, if neither is obvious, and that an employee may be required to secure such documentation from 

an appropriate health care professional.^^ The employer may request documentation or information 

regarding: 

• the nature, severity, and duration of the individual's impairment; 

• the activity or activities that the impairment limits; 

• the extent to which the impairment limits the individual's abihty to perform the activity or activities; 

and/or 

• why the individual requires reasonable accommodation or the particular reasonable accommodation 

requested, as well as how the reasonable accommodation wiU assist the individual to apply for a job, 

perform the essential fimctions of the job, or er\joy a benefit of the workplace.^^ 

Once it has been estabhshed that a reasonable accommodation is necessary to remove a workplace 

barrier, it is the employer who has the discretion to choose among any mmiber of accommodations as long 

as the choice is effective. An employer may not force an employee to accept any particular 

accommodation but if an employee refuses an effective alternative, the employer may be relieved of the 

burden of providing a reasonable accommodation to that employee. The employer may take cost and 

burden into accoimt but should give primaiy consideration to the preference of the individual with a 

disability. ^^ 

Denials of reasonable accommodation requests can be based on undue hardship to the entity or are 

permitted if there is a significant risk that an individual could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of 

himself or others.^ In addition, accommodations that, violate Federal law or regulations or public pohcy 

are not considered to be reasonable.^ Employers do iiot have to make accommodations when those 

arrangements would violate the rights of others or result in increased workload to them, or violate the 

^29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 App. §1630.9 

^Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164, p. 9. 

^Id; p. 8. The EEOC cautions that a request for medical documentation may not be overbroad. An employer is precluded from requesting 

documentation that is "unrelated to determining the existence of a disability and the necessity for an accommodation." Id. 

^EEO C Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, Question 10. 

2'29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630 App. §1630.9. 

^29 CFR. Pt. 1630 App. §§1630.2(p), (r). In order to establish a threat of harm, there must be a high probability of substantial harm. 

^See Albertson's v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999) (employer was not required to waive U.S. Department of TVansportation vision 

requirements for truck driver); Scott v. Beverly Enterprises-Kansas, 968 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Kan 1997) (employer was not required to allow 

employee to perform duties without a Ucense that he was precluded from obtaining due to drug use). 
Chapter 2 

terms of a coUective bargaining agreement.^ Employers are also not required to provide modifications or 

items that assist a person with off-the-job activities or that are not job-related.^' 

'^See Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 E3d 1171 (10* Cir. 1999); U.S. Airways v. Bamett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002); Davis v. Florida Power & 

Light Co., 205 F3d 1301 (11* Cir.), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 927 (2000). 

^'29 C.FR. Pt. 1630 App. §1630.9. 
Chapter 3 

AO's Policies and Practices 

REASONABLE ACCOMMODAnON UNDER GAO ORDER 2306.1 

Reasonable accommodation of a disabiUty at GAO is govemed by the standards found in GAO Order 

2306.1, Employment of Individuals with Disabilities which was last revised in October 1999. The stated 

purpose of the Order is to establish a framework and delineate responsibiUty within the Agency for the 

employment of people with disabiUties. The 1999 revisions of the Order also reflect provisions of the 

Americans with DisabiUties Act. 

Pursuant to Order 2306.1, an employee or appUcant with a disabiUty^^ has the burden of making jobrelated needs for an accommodation known to Agency officials.** Requests are handled on a case-bycase basis.^ Once a request has been made to a supervisor or the appropriate manager, the Agency 

must provide a reasonable accommodation that would enable the individual with a disabiUty to perfonn 

the job unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on GAO operations.^ According to 

an Agency official, GAO has not claimed the defense of undue hardship when denying a reasonable 

accommodation to any employee or appUcant for employment.^ 

At GAO, the employee's direct supervisor is responsible for approving requests for reasonable 

accommodation with the advice and assistance of other relevant management officials in the Counseling 

Center, the Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (O&I) or the Office of General Counsel (OGC). In 

determining whether to grant or deny a request, GAO takes into consideration the foUowing factors: (1) 

whether the request is reasonable in Ught of the facts and circumstances; (2) whether the request 

presents a nexus to the medical condition the employee asserts; (3) whether the accommodation would 

be effective if implemented.^' Supervisors and manz^ers at the Agency are precluded from denying such 

a request unless the Human Capital Officer has reviewed the decision to deny it and concurs with that 

decision. ^^ 

^At GAO, disabiUty status for eeo record-keeping purposes is based on a self-reporting system. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of 

GAO employees who report having a disability has consistently been in the 4-5 percent range. In mid-2003, with a total fulltime workforce 

of 2,991 employees, GAO had 92 employees who reported having a non-severe disability (3.08%) and 29 employees who reported having a 

severe disability (.97%). 

33 Altliough there appears to be no ofRcial requirement that requests be in writing, an oft-referred to Memorandum from a fonner Agency 

official states that, in cases where an employee is requesting special fumiture or equipment, the employee should be asked to "write a 

memo stating what fumiture or equipment he/she is requesting and why." Memorandum: Guidelines on Purchasing Special Furniture and 

Equipment from John H. Luke, Deputy Assistant Comptroller General for Human Resources to Heads of Divisions and Offices (Sept. 17, 

1996). 

^ Memorandum: Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities from John H. Luke, Deputy Assistant Comptroller General for 

Human Resources to Heads of Divisions and Offices (May 15, 1996). 

^GAO Order 2306.1 1[7(a). GAO defines undue hardship as "an action requiring significant difficulty or expense to GAO." Id. at 114(e). 

Considerations in determiiung undue hardship include the cost of the accommodation, the type of work performed, the impact of the 

accommodation on office operations, and the impact on the ability of other employees to perform their assignments. 

^Hoskms Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p. 3. 

^Id. 

"^Id. at p. 4. 
Chapter S 

Among the reasonable accommodations enumerated in Order 2306.1 available to GAO employees and 

applicants are job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; reassignment; acquiring or 

modifying equipment; and, providing quaUfied readers and interpreters.^ In addition to the 

accommodations listed in the Order, GAO has reported that a partial Ust of accommodations it has 

provided include opening building access to personal assistants; reducing travel for employees; allowing 

flexiplace for employees with medical conditions; and providing parking. GAO does not maintain a 

database of requests and denials of requests for reasonable accommodations but reported several 

iUustrative denials to the Board. They included requests for private office space when such space was 

either not available or mappropriate for the use;'*'' requests for assistance that were personal in nature 

and not job-related; and requests to switch employees to different supervisors for stress-related reasons. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13164 AND GAO^S PRACTICES 

Executive Order 13164 mandates a number of steps that Executive branch agencies must take to 

ensure that tliey have effective written procedures in place for processing requests for reasonable 

accommodation. Although the Order does not, of course, apply to GAO, the procedures that it calls for 

provide a comprehensive map for agencies seeking to improve the maimer in which they address these 

requests. The requirements of the Executive Order are bold-faced; GAO's current practices or 

procedures foUow. Each Federal agency in the Executive branch must: 

(1) Explain that an employee or job applicant may Initiate a request for reasonable accommodation 

orally or in writing. If the agency requires an applicant or empioyee to complete a reasonable 

accommodation request form for recordkeeping purposes, the form must be provided as an 

attachment to the agency's written procedures. 

Currently, GAO Order 2306.1 requires the employee or applicant with a disabiUty to make known or 

submit their requests for reasonable accommodation to the appropriate official. There is no instruction 

about how a request should be communicated but GAO accepts either written or oral requests.^^ 

(2) Explain how the agency will process a request for reasonable accommodation, and from 

whom the individual will receive a final decision. 

At GAO, aa Order 2306.1 makes clear, unit management is responsible for considering and granting 

requests for reasonable accommodation. The Order also provides that ".. . an accommodation can be 

denied only upon the review and concurrence of the Deputy Assistant ComptroUer General for Human 

Resources.'"^^ The Orders do not contain any explanation of specific Agency procedures but Order 2306.1 

lays out the responsibiUties that each of seven offices has in implementing policies affecting employees 

with disabilities.^^ 

*GAO Order 2306.1 17(b)(2). 

**The Agency also reported that it has accommodated some of these requests by providing headsets to employees who become distracted in 

certain office environments and making arrangements for an employee to use the GAO Health Unit in lieu of a private office. Hoskins Letter 

(G/27/03). Attachment 1, p.8. 

I'Hoskins Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p, 5. 

"^ 17(d), Tbe equivalent person in GAO's current management scheme is the Human Capital Officer. 

*> The offices are Recruitment, the Training Institute, Personnel, Civil Rights Office, Counseling and Career Development, Information 

Management and Communications, and General Counsel, Many of those offices have either been re-named or had functions transferred 

since the Order was last revised in 1999, 
Chapter 3 

(3) Designate a time period during which reasonable accommodation requests will be granted or 

denied, absent extenuating circumstances. Time limits for decision making should be as short as 

reasonably possible. 

There are no time lines established for processing requests for reasonable accommodation at GAO 

although the Agency's Human Capital Officer has advised the Board that the Agency tries to respond to all 

requests "in as timely a manner as possible, given the facts and circumstances of the accommodation 

request."^ 

(4) Explain the responsibility of the employee or applicant to provide appropriate medical 

information related to the functionai impairment at issue and the requested accommodation where 

the disability and/or need for accommodation is not obvious. 

GAO does not provide guidance to its managers about when to seek medical information from an 

employee or appUcant who has asked for a reasonable accommodation or when to seek permission to 

speak to a health care provider GeneraUy, a imit manager wUl make the decision and may consult with 

the Human Capital Office (HCO) or the Agency's Office of General Counsel (OGC). Supervisors and 

managers are provided with a generic letter requesting medical documentation that was developed by the 

Office of Personnel Management and adopted by GAO. Both the HCO and OGC work with managers to 

taUor the letter to a particular set of circumstances.^^ 

(5) Explain the agency's right to request relevant supplemental medical information if the 

information submitted does not clearly explain the nature of the disability, or the need for the 

reasonable accommodation, or does not otherwise clarify how the requested accommodation 

will assist the employee to perform the essentiai functions of the job or to enjoy the benefits and 

privileges of the workplace. 

At GAO, generaUy the Counseling Services staff in HCOs Performance and Leaming group or the 

Agency's contract physician assumes responsibiUty for interacting with an employee's medical care 

providers. There are no written guidelines for this process.''^ 

(6) Explain the agency's right to have medical information reviewed by a medical expert of the 

agency's choosing at the agency's expense. 

According to GAO, continued interaction with an employee or appUcant's health care providers 

"depends on the nature and severity of the disabiUty and whether there are concems about the extent to 

which the accommodation provided is effective, or continues to be effective."*'' The Agency is not 

required to inform the employee that a medical expert is reviewing his or her information.^ 

(7) Provide that reassignment will be considered as a reasonable accommodation if the agency 

determines that no other reasonable accommodation will permit the employee with a disability to 

perform the essential functions of his or her current position. 

«Hoskins Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p.5, 

*/rf, at pps. 5-6, 

'^Id. at p. 6. 

*Uti. 

•^GAO Order 2339.1 l|6(b), Medical Determinations, (Dec. 1, 2000), allows Agency management to coordinate review of medical 

documentation with a physician or a practitioner of the same discipline as the one who issued the report tn question. 
(liapter •} 

GAO Order 2306.1 provides for reassignment to a vacant position as a possible reasonable 

accommodation.^^ The Agency has denied requests for reassignment to a different supervisor based on 

an employee's aUeged stress due to working for a particular supervisor There were no examples 

involving a reassignment provided by the Agency in its partial Ust of accommodation requests it had 

granted.TM 

(8) Provide that reasonable accommodation denials be In writing and specify the reasons for 

denial. 

According to GAO's Human Capital Officer, denials of requests for reasonable accommodation have 

been in writing "in most cases" and those that are in writing have included an explanation of the reasons 

for the denial.^' 

(9) Ensure that agencies' systems of recordkeeping track the processing of requests for reasonable 

accommodation and maintain the confidentiality of medical information received in accordance 

with applicable laws and regulations. 

To date, the Agency has neither a tracking system nor a database. In June 2003, the Agency said that it 

is in the process of developing a tracking system and database but has not given an expected date for 

completion. ^^ The EEOC requires Executive branch agencies to maintain databases of reasonable 

accommodation requests that contain the foUowing information: 

a. the number and types of reasonable accommodations that have been requested in the 

appUcation process and whether those requests have been granted or denied; 

b. the jobs (occupational series, grade level, and agency component) for which reasonable 

accommodations have been requested; 

c. the types of reasonable accommodations that have been requested for each of those 

jobs; 

d. the number and types of reasonable accommodations for each job, by agency 

component, that have been approved, and the number and types that have been denied; 

e. the number and types or requests for reasonable accommodations that relate to the 

benefits or privileges of employment, and whether those requests have been granted or 

denied; 

f. the reasons for denial of requests for reasonable accommodation; 

g. the amount of time taken to process each request for reasonable accommodation; and, 

*• 117(b)(2). 

^•"Hoskins Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p, 8. 

f^Hoskins Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p,10. 
Chapter 3 

h. the sources of technical assistance that have been consulted in trying to identify 

possible reasonable accommodations.^ 

Agency management has informed the Board that GAO's tracking system and database wiU conform to 

the EEOC's directives.^ 

Medical information obtained subsequent to a request for an accommodation is not filed nor is it 

mcorporated in the employee's official personnel fUes.^^ 

(10) Encourage the use of informal dispute resolution processes to allow individuals with disabilities 

to obtain prompt reconsideration of denials of reasonable accommodation. Agencies must also 

inform individuals with disabilities that they have the right to file complaints in the Equal Employment 

Opportunity process and other statutory processes, as appropriate, if their requests for reasonable 

accommodation are denied. 

'il 

Denials of requests for reasonable accommodation at GAO do not include language notifying the 

employee or appUcant of the right to file a discrimination complaint with the Office of Opportimity and 

Inclusiveness (O&I) or to participate in GAO's mediation program.^^ 

^Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation, p. 16 

(October 20, 2000). 

"Hoskins Letter (6/27/03), Attachment 1, p. 10, 

^Id. Managers and supervisors who receive medical tnformaUon are instructed, orally, to safeguard it 

«/d. 
Chapter ^4 

Q^ onclusions and Recommendations 

THE BOARD STUDIES 

In its 1990 oversight study of the employment of people with disabiUties at GAO, the Board concluded 

that GAO's efforts to promote the employment of people with disabilities was fi-agmented and 

inconsistent. With respect to reasonable accommodation specificaUy, the Board urged GAO to provide 

information to employees, appUcants and supervisors on how to obtain assistance with and advice about 

the issue and to require training for those charged with carrying out GAO's practices with respect to 

equal employment opportunity for persons with disabiUties. 

Just three years later, in its foUow-up study, the Board determined that, overaU, GAO, which was in 

compUance with nearly aU of the Board's earUer reconunendations, had made significant progress in 

ensuring that the concems and needs of persons with disabUities were being addressed. At that time, the 

Board and the Agency were stiU unable to agree on the issue of estabUshment of a database to track 

reasonable accommodation requests. In a recent communication to the Board, however, GAO has 

indicated that it does intend to create a centralized database to track requests for reasonable 

accommodation which wiU be maintained by Recruitment and Employment Services located within the 

Human Capital Office. 

The Board's current study, 10 years after its foUow-up report, focuses only on the issue of GAO's 

poUcies, practices and procediu"es with respect to the processing of requests for reasonable 

accommodation. The Board has concluded that the procedures currentiy in place for requesting a 

reasonable accommodation at the General Accounting Office faU to provide adequate explanation of the 

requirements for making and processing such requests and do not conform to the basic standards to 

which agencies in the Executive branch are expected to adhere. 

SpecificaUy, GAO's intemal Orders and guidance do not explain to employees or appUcants how 

requests are to be conununicated; do not speU out procedures to be foUowed; do not establish timelines 

for the processing of requests; do not provide for training for managers and supervisors in the handling of 

these requests or medical information they may acquire; do not require that denials of requests be in 

writing, and, do not notify employees or appUcants of their right to file a complaint with O&l if a request is 

denied. 

BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Board makes the foUowing recommendations: 

At a minimum, the Agency should immediately undertake to revise GAO Order 2306.1 to describe in 

detail the steps an employee or appUcant should take to initiate a request for a reasonable 

accommodation, making clear that the request 
Chapter U 

(1) does not have to be in writing; 

(2) does not have to contain any particular words or phrases; 

(3) does not have to be made at any prescribed time; 

(4) may be made to a supervisor in the chain of command, O&I or the Human Capital 

Officer or in the case of an appUcant to anyone with whom the appUcant came in contact; 

and, 

(5) may be made by a third party on the employee's or appUcant's behalf. 

The Order should also inform employees of their rights under the ADA and define commonly-used 

terms. GAO should designate an office to function as a central clearinghouse for the reasonable 

accommodation process and to serve as a repository for available Agency resources and potential 

accommodations. 

When a request for reasonable accommodation is denied, the revised Order should mandate that the 

denial be in writing and that the reasons for the denial be specrfied. If an altemative accommodation is 

offered, the notice of the denial should explain the reasons why the Agency beUeves its accommodation 

wUl be effective. The denial letter should also identify the person who made the decision to deny the 

request. FmaUy, the notice of the denial must state that the employee or appUcant has the right to file an 

EEO complaint and explain the steps for doing so. -

The Board also recommends incorporating mandatory training about reasonable accommodation for 

supervisors and managers when revising Order 2306.1. Such training should include guidance on how to 

process requests for reasonable accommodation and enumerate Agency resources that are available to 

assist employees. Management officials should also be weU-versed in the appropriate time and manner in 

which medical documentation should be asked for and how it is to be handled when it is acquired. In 

addition, the Agency should provide to aU managers, supervisors, and unit heads a Ust of offices and 

people who are avaUable to assist in the handling of these requests and delineate the areas of expertise of 

each of those resources. 

FinaUy, the Board renews its recommendation, first promulgated in its 1990 report and reiterated in its 

1994 report, that GAO estabUsh and maintain a database to track requests for reasonable accommodation, 

as weU as approvals and denials of those requests. The information that wiU be captured by this database 

wiU enable GAO management to note the length of time it takes to respond to requests and to determine 

the reasons for delays if they tend, for example, to recur with certain kinds of requests or within certain 

offices or units. GAO wiU also be able to detennine whether there are types of accommodations that it 

cannot provide. The Agency has informed the Board that it is in the process of developing a database that 

wUl comply with the requirements that Executive Order 13164 imposes on Executive branch agencies. 

According to the Hiunan Capital Officer, GAO's database wUl be maintained by Recruitment and 

Employment Services, a unit that operates within the Human Capital Office. 
< hapter 'i 

CONCLUSION 

In 1990, the Board studied GAO's poUcies and practices with respect to the employment of people with 

disabiUties and determined that they were fragmented and fi-aught with problems; four years later, the 

Board's review revealed significant progress in GAO's efforts to ensure that people with disabiUties were 

afforded equal employment opportunities at the Agency. 

Ten years after its foUow-up study, a sea of significant changes in the law and poUcy led the Board to 

decide to look more closely into the area of reasonable accommodation in order to determine whether 

GAO's practices had evolved and progressed. Unfortunately, the Board found that the Agency lags 

significantiy behind the Executive branch in maintaining written poUcies and procedures that conform to 

current law in the area. The Board is confident, however, that the establishment of the long awaited 

database to track requests for reasonable accommodation coupled with a m^or overhaul of GAO Order 

2306.1 wiU resolve most, if not aU, of the issues that have been raised as concems in tlus report. 
Appendix I 

(M esponse From the Agency 

AccounttbUlty * Integrity ' ReBaUlItv 

United States General Accoimting Offlce 

Washii^ton, DC 20548 

April 1,2004 

Ms. M. Gail Gerebenics 

Director, EEO Oversight 

Personnel Appeals Board 

U.S. Genera] Accounting Office 

Suite 560, Union Center Plaza n 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Ms. Gerebenics: 

This letter is in r^i>onse to your draft report. Reasonable Accommodation at GAO, 

Issued on March 8,2004. Consistent with our June 27,2003 letter, we are continuir^ 

our efforts to develop guidelines on the employment of individuals with disabilities. 

We have developed a draft order and are woridng with the Office of General Counsel 

to finalize the oider. In addition, accompanying procediu^s to address information 

tracking and reporting, as well as other Items requiring specific procedural direction, 

will be included in this docimient 

Ifyou have specific questions about these initiatives, please feel free to caU me on 

(202) 512-5533 or Phyllis Hughes on (202) 51^-2995. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jesse E. HoskirB^ 

^)^^Chief Human Cs^ital Officer 
Appendix II 

^^ly esponse From the Advisory Council For Persons With 

^^^ Disabilities 

G A G 

Aocouniabllty • natgrty • tltf rtlWy 

Unlt«d States Oeneral Acconnttng Offlce 

Washinston, DC 20S48 

April 2, 2004 

Ms. M. Gail Gerebenics 

Director, EEO Oversight 

Personnel Appeals Board 

Union Center Plaza n - Suite 560 

Washington, DC 20548 

Dear Jfc. Gerebenics: 

Thank you for the opportuni^ to review and comment on the PAB draft report: 

"Reasonable Accommodation at GAO". The Advisoiy Cotmcil for Persons with 

Disabilities (ACPD) appreciates the systematic i^proach taken by the PAB in its 

review. 

"Hie report's conclusions are on target and address mai^ of the deficiencies in GAO's 

reasonable accommodation process. Although the ACPD agrees with PAB's 

conclusion, in general, that GAO la ^ significantiy behind the Executive Branch in 

maintaining written policies and procedures that conform to current law in the area, 

we are disappointed that the conclusion is not more definitive with respect to the 

agency's falure to follow the ADA as implemented by the Executive Branch. The 

ACPD believes that the PAB's findir^ support a stronger conclusion than a 

statement that GAO Is ^ behind most executive agencies in implementing this critical 

mandate. We believe that GAO should be a first class role model agency for other 

federal agencies in providing reasonable accommodations. 

Religion of GAO Order 2306.1 Needed 

The ACPD agrees that GAO Order 2306.1 needs extensive revisioiw and concurs with 

the recommendations proposed. In addition, the order can include mentioning that 

the aggrieved employee msy consult with the officers of the ACPD. 

Although the E3xecutive Branch has moved forward with guidance for the reasonable 

accommodation process, GAO has not. In December 1999, the Deputy Assistant 

Comptroller (ieneral for Human Resources, speaking at an ACPD annual meeting, 

stated ttiat GAO would shortly be coming otrt with revised reasonable 

accommodation procedures. To date that has not been done. The latest updated GAO 

Order 2306.1 Is October 8,1999, which is very limited. The order informs employees 

that GAO will provide reasonable accommodations under certain conditions, but 
Appendix II 

does not provide guidance for employees who received accommodations that were 

less effective than what was requested (see below) or whose accommodation 

requests were denied altogether (EEO s^peal rights). 

The ACPD suggests that the order aiso include references to altemative 

accommodations suggested by management When an accommodation suggested by 

management is different from the one the employee requested, the scope ofthe 

difierent accommodation be described and that GAO provide written explanation 

vfby the accommodation is substantially equivalent to the requested one In meeting 

the needs ofthe employee with a disability. As currently done, £^parently only 

denials of accommodation are recommended to be in writing. 

Although reasonable accommodations are considered on case-by-case basis, the GAO 

order should also mention decisions on accommodation requests should be made and 

applied consistentb^. The ACPD is aware of an Instance where a formerly denied 

accommodation request for one employee was later granted when substantially the 

same request was subnutted to new management. Under a rational, poUcy-based 

system, the result should be the same no matter who the ultimate decision-maker is. 

AccommodatiQn Traddnc Svstem 

The ACPD is also looking forward to the establishment of the database to track 

requests for reason£U>le accommodations - something the ACPD has requested for 

years. We are relieved that GAO has finally agreed to establish a database to 

document requests for accommodation, but we are rather s^palled that it has taken 

so long. We hope the PAB recommends that the agency have this in place by a 

specific date. Wthout these data, the agency simpty cannot know how well it is 

meeting the needs of its disabled population. Efforts to survey staff and manager 

should be taken so the database reflects current and recent past employee 

experience, especially regarding denials. Until the database has been up and running 

for a while and has sufficient information, GAO management cannot be held 

accountable for its performance. 

Although GAO has agreed to establish an accommodation request tracking system, 

GAO's record of following throu^ on such commitments is not unblemished. In view 

of this, the PAB should set measurable performance goals for the agency, and take 

appropriate action if these goals are not met 

Acknowledging thM its inquiiy was hindered by the lack of data on accommodation, 

the PAB review relied on anecdotal evidence. The ACPD questions whether there was 

any effort made to contact employees with disabilities to get their perspective and 

experiences. Employees with disabilities are represented throu^ the ACPD, which 

could have asked its members if they wera open to being contacted by the PAB to 

assist with its work- As far as we know, this did not happen. 

While EEOC guidance states that the reasonable accommodation proems should 

involve, after the initial substantiated requ^, an employer-initiated dialogue between 

the employee and impropriate official. At a minimum, the dialogue should include 1) 

a description of the problem caused by a particular woricplace bamer and 2) 

Page 2 
Appendix II 

suggestions from both parties about ^^^lat accommodation ma^ be needed to remove 

a particular barrier. During this period of communication, the burden of determining 

the most appropriate accommodation rests with the employer. It has been our 

experience thai the dialogue does not normaUy take place. Rather, GAO either says 

no or ignores accommodation requests, procures the dieapest adaptive equipment or 

services instead of the most appropriate, effective equipment or service to 

accommodate the disabled onployee, or does not propose altemative solutioi^ 

An altemative to GAO statistics would be to request data from GAO on the number of 

EEO counseling issues and EEO complaints that included failure to accommodate as 

an element of the charge. An additioital data source would be charges filed with the 

PAB that included failure to accommodate as an element ofthe charge. 

In the discussion of cases conceming denied accommodations, we wonder why there 

was no mention of the Gaston case? Tlie dted examples of denials seem trivial, such 

as a private offlce or swHching supervisors. It Is the ACPD's understanding that the 

Gaston case involved the removal of what had apparently been an Infomial but 

successful flextlme accommodation, resulting in an employee becoming unable to 

manage her disabili^ and continue her career. 

The report's conclusions are on target and address many of the deficiencies in GAO's 

reasonable accommodation process. However, they do not address a more basic 

Issue. GAO's EEO processes and appeal rights are not as conspicuous as they should 

be. Over the years, GAO revamped its EEO oiganization, and centralized all 

complaint activitira into headquarters. However, there shears to be no information 

posted about this. In fact, there does not seem to be any posted infonnation or poster 

that provided information about the EEO process. 

GAG Diaabled Emplovees Is Suspect 

In the report's footnote #32, it states: "At GAO, disability status for EEO recordkeeping purposes is based on a self-reporting system. Over the past 10 years, the 

percentage of OAO employees who report having a disability has consistently been in 

the 4-5 percent range. In nud-2003, with a total full-time workforce of 2,991 

employees, GAO reported that 92 employees reported having a non-severe disability 

(^.08%) and 29 employees reported having a severe disabiUty (.97%)." 

The ACPD believes that these numbers may be suspect. There is no way to judge the 

accuracy ofthe above numbers since GAO does not appear to iqxlate records of 

those employees i^o are currentiy dteabled Tliat is, GAO employees who were ablebodied iyh?in fiJ^ ^'U^*^ became disabled later while employed at GAO. GAO has a 

form (Form 164) for employees to use to self4dentify their disablU^ or disabilities 

when they were first hired. This form should also be available on the GAO intranet; 

those who are currently employed and became disabled after they were hired can 

complete this form. Without a viable mechanism for current disabled GAO employees 

to self-report their disability or disabilities, GAO has no real idea of its population of 

disabled employees. Furthermore, how does this population compare with that of 

other professional service oiganizations? 

Page 3 
Appendix II 

Given that there is not a valid reliable census of GAO employees with disabilities, the 

ACPD believes the PAB should recommend that GAO conduct a census ofit people 

with disabilities to identife' the actual population. Further, in revising its policies on 

reasonable accommodation, GAO should specifically estshllsh procedures for selfreporting of disabilities for both newly hired staff and staff who are current GAO 

employees. 

Accommodation Concems 

The ACPD believes that GAO can improve its ability to accommodate requests at the 

office-wide level. For example, none of the vans used for team travel or for evening 

rides to the Metro and parking lots is wheelchair equipped. When a request was 

made for the next purchased vehicle to be wheelchair equipped, the legal office orally 

granted the request, but, a year later, it appears that neither the van nor altemative 

equivalent transiportation has yet been procured. 

Another issue regards the execution offire safety protocols for people with mobility 

impairments. When the fire alarm went off in headquarters in mid-Januaiy, 2004, two 

mobility-impaired employees in wheelchairs went to their designated stairwell with 

their buddies. They had to wait outside the stairwells because the presence of the 

wheelchairs inside the stairwells would have blocked other evacuees. Security and 

Safety never checked the stairwells for mobility-Impaired people on their floor, nor 

did they tell them it was a false alarm. Eventually one of their co-workers called 

Securi^ and Safety and was informed that the alarm was false. This Is a good 

example where an accommodation is technically in place, but the follow-through is 

unreliable. 

Additional Recommendations 

In summaiy, we respectfully request that the PAB consider adding the following 

specific recommendations: 

-That GAO immediately establish the accommodation database; 

-That GAO conduct an agency-wide census of people with disabilities, a confidential 

survey to ensure that it accurately reflects current population of disabled employees; 

-That GAO's revised Order be available for eit5)Ioyee comment and, once finalized, 

be posted prominently on the Human Capital Office web page so employees are well 

informed about the process; 

-That GAO continue to improve in meeting accommodation needs for its disabled 

employees. 

The ACPD would be more than happy to work with the Human Capital Office and any 

other cognizant GAO office to accomplish these tasks aforementioned. 

Page 4 
Appendix II 

The ACPD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the PAB's draft report, 

"Reasonable Accommodations at GAO". Ifyou any comments or questions related to 

our responses, please feel free to contact me at KenvonE)@GAO.j{ov. 

Sincerely yours. 

Daniel J. Kenyon, President 

Advisory Council for Persons with DisabiUties 

cc: ACPD Members 

Ron Stroman, 001 

Jesse Hoskins, HCO 

Pages 
oard Comments on the ACPD Letter 

Board Comments on ACPD Letter 

In its comments, the Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities agreed with the Board's 

conclusions in the report, generally, and specifically endorsed Board recommendations that GAO 

Order 2306.1 be extensively revised and that a database to track requests for reasonable 

accommodation be established and maintained. 

In addition, the ACPD requested that the PAB consider four specific recommendations: (1) that 

GAO immediately eslablish the accommodation database; (2) that GAO conduct an agency-wide 

census of people with disabilities through a confidential survey; (3) that GAO's revised Order be 

available for employee comment, and once finalized, be posted prominently on the Human Capital 

Office web page; (4) that GAO continue to improve in meeting accommodation needs for its 

disabled employees. 

In response, the Board notes that it has been recommending that the Agency establish and maintain 

a database to track requests for reasonable accommodation since 1990. In June 2003, the Agency 

informed the Board that, not only did it no longer object to the database, but that it was in the 

process of developing one that will comply with all ofthe requirements to which the Executive 

branch is subject. The Agency has assured the Board that it will have a database in the very near 

fiiture. 

The ACPD's second point mirrors a Board recommendation first made in 1990. The Board remains 

committed to its longstanding recommendation that the Agency periodically update its data on 

employees with disabilities. The Board also believes that educating employees about the purpose of 

the self-identification data would ensure a more accurate census. 

Regarding the ACPD's third point, the Board notes that the Agency routinely makes its draft Orders 

available for comment and posts them prominently on the Agency's main Intranet page throughout 

the finalization process. 

With respect to the final recommendafion, the Board expects that GAO will continue to work to 

improve the provision of reasonable accommodafion. The Board will be periodically monitoring 

issues relating to the employment of people with disabilifies in future studies. As in the past, the 

monitoring could include a follow-up to this report to determine the status ofthe Board's 

recommendations. 

The ACPD also raised several issues in its comments that the Board believes require clarification or 

elucidation. For example, the ACPD questioned whether the Board made any effort to contact 

employees about their experiences. Because this particular study and report focused on the process 

of requesting reasonable accommodafion and measttred GAO's procedures against those of 

established law and guidance in the area, no interviews were conducted. The ACPD also pointed to 

the lack of information about the Agency's EEO process, in general. Immediately prior to this 

report and study, the Board reviewed the procedures and practices that govern the intemal 

discrimination complaint process at GAO. The Board's ftndings and recommendations with respect 

to those issues can be found in its report entitled Study of GAO's Office of Opportunity and 

Inclusiveness. The report, issued in February 2004, is available on the Board's web site 

(www .pab .gao.gov).