Opinion ID: 147655
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Mr. Wilkerson otherwise qualified?

Text: The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA provide relief only to disabled persons who are otherwise qualified to perform the functions of the job. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 12116 to promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.1-.16. We give these regulations a great deal of deference. Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1165 n. 5 (10th Cir.1999) (citation omitted); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n. 3 (10th Cir.1997). Under these regulations, employers may set skill, experience, education and other job related requirements, including physical qualifications for the employment position. Tate v. Farmland Indus. Inc., 268 F.3d 989, 993 (10th Cir. 2001); Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 406, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979) (An otherwise qualified person is one who is able to meet all of the program's requirements in spite of his handicap.). An employer, however, may not: us[e] qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6); see also E.E.O.C. v. Exxon Corp., 203 F.3d 871, 872 (5th Cir.2000) (The ADA prohibits an employer from using qualification standards that screen out a disabled individual or class.) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (1999)). Additionally, any job requirement must be uniformly enforced. Tate, 268 F.3d at 993. Assuming these requirements are met, we defer to employment guidelines as constituting a body of experience and informed judgment. Id. at 994 (quoting United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139-40, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944))). [2] The district court found that Mr. Wilkerson was not otherwise qualified for employment as a boiler room operator: Although the Court assumes that the Plaintiff is disabled, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate in this case because Plaintiff was not `otherwise qualified' for the position of boiler plant operator.... Plaintiff was not discriminated against because of his weight. He simply failed to meet the minimum physical requirements of the position. Because he could not meet these requirements, Plaintiff was not `otherwise qualified' to be a boiler plant operator at the VA. Aplt's App. at 13 (citations omitted). We agree. CEOSH's guidelines for who could work as a boiler plant operator set a number of criteria that are exclusionary, and among these are [u]ncontrolled or poorly controlled insulin-dependent diabetes. Aple's App. at 00093. The job requires an operator who might be able at all times to respond to an emergency with some degree of physical agility. Id. at 00092. Moreover, the job requires a fair amount of heavy lifting, bending, agility in movement and so forth. Id. at 00092, 00094 (Boiler Plant Operator Physical Requirements). Thus, the question becomes whether these requirements are (1) job-related, (2) uniformly enforced, and (3) consistent with business necessity, Tate, 268 F.3d at 993; if so, the employer has the right to establish what is required to satisfactorily perform the job. All three elements for a valid physical fitness requirement are satisfied here. First, the guidelines are undisputedly job-related: they describe the duties of the job and then establish categories of individuals who are excluded based on this. For example, in the case of a shutdown or an emergency, an operator needs to be able to react swiftly to any emergency, such as an increase in pressure. Aple's App. at 00041 (Deposition of Elvin Wrede) (describing the process in case a shutdown is needed). Further the daily responsibilities require that an operator be able to (1) utilize pipe wrenches of varying sizes for removal or tightening of pipe fittings; (2) go up and down ladders to perform any required maintenance such as re-packing or tightening the packing on the valves, change relief valves, replace gaskets and tighten bolts on steam line flanges; and (3) react instantly to any dangerous situations that might occur. Id. at 00028 (Declaration of Elvin Wrede). Next, the VA uniformly enforced the boiler room operator guidelines: The VA requires that all boiler room operators undergo an annual physical examination and those who fail are subject to removal. Aple's App. at 00031 (Declaration of Sandra Willoughby), 00029 (Declaration of Elvin Wrede), 00037 (Deposition of Elvin Wrede); see also id. at 00040 (describing another employee who failed to meet the physical requirements and who was removed from boiler room duties). Indeed, Mr. Wilkerson makes no real argument that the VA treated others in his situation differently. Finally, the guidelines are a business necessity. The requirements are minimal physical standards that a boiler room operator must meet. Mr. Wilkerson's supervisors testified that his responsibilities included being able to respond to warning bells and gauges, and that he `needed to be able to climb ladders and go up and down stairs quickly.' Aplt's App. at 76. Although Mr. Wilkerson testified that 95% of his work was [l]ight duty, and he was only occasionally required to climb on ladders, in times of crisis, he might need to act quickly and move with dispatch. Id. at 116-17. The VA was within its power when it passed these guidelines and it is understandable for administrative ease and to ensure the uniformity of standards that it would desire to have guidelines that establish a limited class of individuals who do not qualify to work in boiler rooms at their facilities. We acknowledge that Mr. Wilkerson worked for two years at this position without incident. Of course, Mr. Wilkerson's weight and health status during all of this time is unknown; we only know that information as of February 2007. But in any event, the requirements are there in case of an extraordinary but possible emergency, not necessarily to determine the ability to perform day-to-day routine boiler plant operations. The fact that no such emergency occurred during Mr. Wilkerson's tenure and that he was able to perform his job is fortuitous; but an employer may set standards not only for the mundane work but also for the exceptional. As long as the need to perform in an emergency is a realistic component of the job, the employer should be able to establish reasonable physical qualifications to ensure that an emergency situation can be dealt with safely and efficiently by the employee, especially in situations like here, where the physical safety of others may be at risk. Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. at 414, 99 S.Ct. 2361. The record indicates that Mr. Wilkerson would pose a danger to himself and others should he fall from a ladder. It also warns of potentially disastrous effects if he was unable to shut down a boiler if it malfunctions, leading to a possible explosion. For example, Mr. Wilkerson's supervisor, Elvin Wrede, stated that if one of the boilers was to explode from improper maintenance or operation, the force would bring down the entire building that houses them. Aple's App. at 28 (Declaration of Elvin Wrede). Thus, we agree with the district court that because Mr. Wilkerson failed to meet the VA's boiler room operator safety standards he was not otherwise qualified as required by the Rehabilitation Act. We have established that before an individual can be deemed not otherwise qualified the employer must make an effort to accommodate the employee's disability. See Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir.1997); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). We have held that federal employers, like the VA, must play a considerable role in ensuring that every reasonable effort is made to find suitable jobs for disabled employees. See Woodman, 132 F.3d at 1334. There are two components to the reasonable accommodation analysis. First, whether a reasonable accommodation would enable the employee to do the particular job. Additional training might be a reasonable accommodation for this purpose. Second, whether the employee could be transferred to other work which could be done with or without accommodation. Gonzagowski v. Widnall, 115 F.3d 744, 747 (10th Cir.1997) (emphasis in original). The federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties. Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We hold that the VA made reasonable accommodations under the circumstances. The VA reassigned Mr. Wilkerson to another position, albeit a lower-paid one. As we previously stated, reassignment of an employee to a vacant position in a company is one of the range of reasonable accommodations which must be considered and, if appropriate, offered if the employee is unable to perform his or her existing job. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1167. However, when such an offer involves lower pay or benefits, it only satisfies the employer's duty to accommodate if there are no reasonable accommodations either in the old job or in another vacant lateral position. Id. We hold that under the circumstances there were no reasonable accommodations that would have allowed Mr. Wilkerson to remain employed in the boiler room and thus the transfer to the lower paid position was reasonable. [3] For example, Mr. Wilkerson's request that the VA purchase a special ladder to accommodate for his weight was a reasonable request and the VA considered it. The VA, however, concluded that such action would not relieve all of the concerns of keeping Mr. Wilkerson in the boiler room. See Aple's App. at 00066 (Deposition of Sandra Willoughby) (stating that the VA would have been willing to purchase such a ladder but that the VA had too many other concerns that Mr. Wilkerson would not have been qualified even with such a purchase). We have also held that the Rehabilitation Act requires an `interactive process.' Woodman, 132 F.3d at 1345 n. 16 (reasonable accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the qualified individual with a disability (quoting 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9 (1996))). The obligation to engage in an interactive process is inherent in the statutory obligation to offer a reasonable accommodation to an otherwise qualified disabled employee. The interactive process is typically an essential component of the process by which a reasonable accommodation can be determined. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1172. Here, although there was not a face-to-face meeting between the parties to discuss accommodations, Mr. Wilkerson requested an accommodation that the VA considered and denied. Based on the circumstances in this case, it was reasonable for the VA to conclude that any further interactive process would be futile and that no reasonable accommodation was possible that would allow Mr. Wilkerson to work in the boiler room. Thus, we hold that Mr. Wilkerson is not otherwise qualified to serve in the boiler room and there was no reasonable accommodation that would have allowed him to continue. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate as to this claim, and we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, the VA.