Opinion ID: 399394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Employment of the Severely Disabled

Text: 6 The principal question at issue in this case is whether the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires the federal government to cease any discrimination against qualified handicapped employees. Our effort to resolve this question is complicated somewhat by the fact that Mr. Shirey's troubles were entirely due to the features of an administrative program under which he was hired, a program designed to promote federal employment for handicapped persons. 7 The government program under which Mr. Shirey was hired predated the Rehabilitation Act, and for many years it was the most important element in federal efforts to hire the handicapped. But the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 represented a powerful congressional initiative which, to a large extent, eclipsed and supplanted the prior efforts of the civil service authorities. The following sections of this opinion demonstrate, however, that those authorities have been slow to alter their programs in response to the new law. As a result, the program under which Mr. Shirey was hired (and which governed the conditions of his employment) failed to meet all the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act.
8 The program under which Mr. Shirey was hired began as an administrative experiment in 1964, and its structure was largely shaped by the overall structure of the federal employment system. Civil service positions are divided into two categories: competitive service positions and positions excepted from the competitive service. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2102-2103 (1976 & Supp. III 1979). 8 Congress has excepted some positions from the competitive service by statute 9 ; others are excepted because they require Senate confirmation of appointees. 10 Furthermore, the President may prescribe rules for necessary exceptions of positions from the competitive service(.) Id. § 3302(1) (1976). The President, in turn, has delegated this authority to the Civil Service Commission and its successor, the Office of Personnel Management. Executive Order No. 10577, Rule VI, 3 C.F.R. 222 (1954-1958 Comp.), reprinted as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 3301 app. at 375 (1976). 9 Pursuant to the President's delegation of authority, the Civil Service Commission created a large number of excepted positions over the course of the years, linked principally by its determination that it would not be practicable to fill them by competitive processes. 11 In 1964 the Commission included among these an experimental exception for positions filled by persons with severe physical handicaps. 29 Fed.Reg. 498 (1964) (codified at 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)); cf. 28 Fed.Reg. 10327 (1963) (codified at 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(t)) (mentally retarded persons). Three years later the Commission made these authorities permanent, and it removed numerical limits on the number of positions agencies could fill with physically disabled or mentally retarded persons. 32 Fed.Reg. 10635 (1967). 10 Subsections (t) and (u) are only two of many authorities for filling positions outside of the competitive service. Many of these identify jobs wholly different in character from those performed by competitive service employees 12 or specialized part-time or seasonal work. 13 Subsections (t) and (u) differ from almost all other excepted service positions because they do not define the type of position to be filled, only the medical condition of the employee. 14 Subject to approval by the central civil service authority, see 5 C.F.R. § 213.102 (1981), any position in the civil service could be excepted for a handicapped person, regardless of the job duties, so long as the appointee was qualified to perform them. 15 11 In July 1969 the Civil Service Commission launched on its own initiative a program to promote what it called selective placement, or the careful matching of the abilities of the handicapped persons with the duties of particular positions. Federal Personnel Manual 306-3 (July 1969). As part of this program the Commission attempted to educate federal employers about the usefulness of subsection (u) authority as a means to provide for continuing employment of severely handicapped people by match(ing) job tasks and work environment to accommodate the particular disabilities of a severely handicapped person. Id. at 306-14 (May 30, 1972). After the Commission began its 1969 campaign, employment of handicapped persons under excepted service authority increased substantially. 16 It was under this program that Mr. Shirey was hired, using subsection (u) to bypass the competitive appointment system.
12 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was not the first congressional initiative relating to federal employment of the handicapped. In 1948 Congress enacted a strongly worded statute banning discrimination in federal employment, 17 but it was subsequently revised so that by the time Mr. Shirey lost his job it did not apply to his case. 18 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, however, was the first major federal statute designed to provide assistance to the whole population of handicapped persons. As part of that effort, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act addressed discrimination against the handicapped. Section 501 required all departments and agencies in the Executive Branch to submit to the Civil Service Commission an affirmative action program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of handicapped individuals, which would be approved by the Commission if it offered sufficient assurances, procedures and commitments to accomplish the affirmative action goals. 29 U.S.C. § 791(b) (1976). 19 13 Other sections of the 1973 Act created a board to promote elimination of architectural and transportation barriers in federal, state, and local government facilities, including public housing and other institutions, id. § 792, provided for affirmative action clauses in federal procurement contracts, id. § 793, and prohibited discrimination against any otherwise qualified handicapped individual in programs receiving federal financial assistance, id. § 794. The Civil Service Commission did not specifically revise its regulations concerning federal employment of the handicapped when the Rehabilitation Act went into effect. Instead, it designed a model affirmative action plan for federal agencies, see Federal Personnel Manual 306-C-1 et seq. (April 20, 1978), and it also stepped up its efforts to educate responsible federal officials about the special needs of handicapped employees and applicants for employment. 20 14 In 1978 Congress took a second major initiative in the area of federal employment of the handicapped with a set of amendments to the Rehabilitation Act and other laws affecting the handicapped. Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, Pub.L.No.95-602, 92 Stat. 2955 (1978 Amendments). The most important of these, as far as this case is concerned, is a new Section 505 added to the Rehabilitation Act, stating in part: 15 The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964   , including the application of sections 706(f) through 706(k)   , shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place accommodation, and the availability of alternatives therefor or other appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate remedy. 16 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1) (Supp. III 1979). Section 505 also set up a similar relationship between Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1967, id. § 794a(a)(2), and it provided for attorney fee awards to prevailing parties in actions under both Section 501 and Section 504, id. § 794a(b). 21 As before, the Civil Service Commission did not revise its regulations concerning federal employment of the handicapped in response to the 1978 Amendments. 22 17
18 A brief summary of the material discussed in the foregoing sections suffices to highlight the issues raised by this case. Since World War II both Congress and the civil service authorities have pursued laudable efforts to ensure that the federal government provides employment opportunities to the severely handicapped. Nevertheless, the emphases of the programs, and the understanding behind each program of what harm required action, varied from program to program over time. Until the mid-1960's both Congress and the Executive Branch seemed to focus on removing artificial impediments to employment of the handicapped through normal competitive processes. Beginning in 1964, however, the Civil Service Commission increasingly relied on using excepted service authority to place the most severely handicapped in appropriate federal positions. This course of action gave federal employers a great deal of flexibility in matching specific applicants to jobs that they could perform, and it guarded against hidden biases in the competitive examination process. 23 On the other hand, relying on excepted service appointments also operated to deny important job protection and promotion benefits to those handicapped persons who were eventually employed. 19 In 1973 Congress mandated affirmative action for handicapped persons, not only in hiring but also in placement and advancement, throughout the federal government. And, although the original Rehabilitation Act was silent on the matter, the 1978 Congress confirmed that the federal courts as well as civil service authorities should have a role in enforcing its affirmative action guarantee. Furthermore, Congress demonstrated that it perceived discrimination against the handicapped as fundamentally similar to other forms of discrimination-on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or religious belief-addressed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the outset nondiscrimination against the handicapped was perhaps seen as merely fair play and good federal policy, a recognition that the disabled had performed valuable services during the war and that handicapped veterans should have a role in postwar society, 24 but by 1978 Congress had made it clear that nondiscrimination was an obligation, not a gratuity. 25 20 The civil service programs that began in 1969 certainly went a long way toward discharging that obligation. Not only did the government hire more severely handicapped employees, see notes 16 and 18 supra, but it also made important progress in opening up a variety of jobs to the handicapped. A Chain of Cooperation, supra note 16, at 6-7. The affirmative action plans drawn up after 1973 surely deepened federal officials' awareness both of opportunities for employing the handicapped in their departments and of the subtly discriminatory aspects of day-to-day life on the job. Furthermore, the Civil Service Commission's programs show an appreciation for the number of physical and mental conditions that at times exacerbate the effect of physical disabilities. 26 Nevertheless, until 1979 those employees classified as severely handicapped and given excepted service appointments had long-range employment prospects and protections significantly different from those of their co-workers in similar or identical jobs. The fact that this aspect of the system was modified in 1979 by Executive Order, see note 22 supra, suggests that we are not alone in suspecting some dissonance between the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the pre-existing programs that, in the absence of specific efforts to interpret the statute, bore the burden of implementing it. 21 Mr. Shirey's federal employment occurred during a period of rapid change in the status of the handicapped as federal employees. He was hired shortly before the Rehabilitation Act was first passed and separated shortly before it was amended in 1978. The record does not disclose why he received an excepted service appointment rather than undergoing a competitive examination with special accommodations, 27 but soon after he began working at Goddard NASA instituted an affirmative action plan that relied heavily on subsection (u) appointments to meet its obligation under the Rehabilitation Act. 28 Had Mr. Shirey been more fortunate, perhaps, the reduction-in-force might have come 15 months later, by which time he could have attained full competitive service status under Executive Order 12125, see note 22 supra. However, he was not so fortunate, and thus he presents for our decision the question whether an agency's refusal to provide equal job protection and promotion rights to its severely handicapped employees violated Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.