Opinion ID: 4564764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Training Request

Text: We now turn to Palmer’s training request. Similar to his note-taking request, Palmer claims that he repeatedly requested a training accommodation because of his short-term memory disability beginning in October 2011 and the VA failed to accommodate that request. Again, to trigger the VA’s accommodation obligations, Palmer must have specifically demanded an accommodation, see D’Onofrio, 964 F.3d at 1022, meaning that he must have at least explained how his training accommodation was linked to his memory disability, see Reed, 244 F.3d at 261. The record is clear that Palmer made a specific request for accommodation in the form of additional SNL training in August 2012, shortly before his resignation, and the record shows the VA approved the request after receiving the requested medical documentation. Specifically, on August 21, 2012, Palmer e- mailed Witty to request an “accommodation for additional training” on the new SNL program and specifically mentioned his “disability limitations” and “memory issue.” Witty explained that Palmer had never provided evidence that he had a memory problem and that he should submit a physician questionnaire documenting 30 Case: 19-12165 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 31 of 33 his need for additional training on account of a memory disability. On September 10, 2012, Palmer submitted the 2012 physician questionnaire, documenting his memory-loss disability and confirming that additional “learning time” would accommodate that disability. The VA approved his accommodation request for additional training four days later. Palmer attempts to sidestep this clear evidence, arguing that although the VA agreed to provide him additional training on the new SNL system, the VA never provided him training on regular veterans claims, which he requested as early as October 2011. Again, prior to his August 2012 request, Palmer points to three instances where he requested that the VA provide a reasonable accommodation: his October 4, 2011 email to Smith, his October 12, 2011 discussion with Wright (recapped in Wright’s email), and his statements to Clarke during their meeting on October 13, 2011. Even assuming that he made a sufficiently specific request on the first two occasions to trigger the VA’s duty to accommodate his memory disability by providing additional training, the VA did just that. In the October 4, 2011 email to Smith, Palmer stated that he never received adequate training for regular claims because up to that point he had focused on Nehmer claims. Shortly thereafter, Wright e-mailed Palmer to confirm, per their earlier conversation, that he “now ha[d] access to all training.” Thus, according to the October 12, 2011 e-mail with 31 Case: 19-12165 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 32 of 33 Wright, whatever issues Palmer had with training on regular veterans claims prior to his October 13, 2011 meeting with Clarke had been resolved by that time. Finally, assuming Palmer made a reasonable request for a training accommodation on account of his memory disability during his October 13, 2011 meeting with Clarke, Palmer withheld the information necessary to accommodate that request by failing to provide medical documentation of the disability. See Jackson, 414 F.3d at 813. Therefore, just as with his note-taking request, the VA cannot be held liable for not addressing any alleged training request during that period. Contrary to Palmer’s assertions, the record shows that every time he mentioned needing additional training—regardless of whether he specifically tied it to his disability—the VA provided it. When he spoke to Wright about his need for additional regular training in October 2011, Wright made sure that he had “access to all training.” Moreover, once Palmer provided the VA with documentation of his memory disability in September 2012, it approved his request for “additional training.” And the 2012 accommodation approval notice generally gives Palmer the green light to receive “additional training”—it does not limit the training accommodation to SNL training. Therefore, the VA never denied Palmer a reasonable accommodation for any type of training. 32 Case: 19-12165 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 33 of 33 In sum, nothing in the record shows that the VA denied Palmer’s request to take notes or to receive additional training as an accommodation for his short-term memory loss. As a result, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the VA discriminated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 33