Opinion ID: 787450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Windfall Proposition

Text: 116 PHA, arguing the windfall theory to our Court, suggests that Williams, by being regarded as disabled by PHA, receives a windfall accommodation compared to a similarly situated employee who had not been regarded as disabled and would not be entitled under the ADA to any accommodation. The record in this case demonstrates that, absent PHA's erroneous perception that Williams could not be around firearms because of his mental impairment, a radio room assignment would have been made available to him and others similarly situated. PHA refused to provide that assignment solely based upon its erroneous perception that Williams's mental impairment prevented him not only from carrying a gun, but being around others with, or having access to, guns — perceptions specifically contradicted by PHA's own psychologist. While a similarly situated employee who was not perceived to have this additional limitation would have been allowed a radio room assignment, Williams was specifically denied such an assignment because of the erroneous perception of his disability. The employee whose limitations are perceived accurately gets to work, while Williams is sent home unpaid. This is precisely the type of discrimination the regarded as prong literally protects from, as confirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Arline and the legislative history of the ADA. Accordingly, Williams, to the extent PHA regarded him as disabled, was entitled to reasonable accommodation. 19