Court Opinion

ID: 9491000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:01:00.247669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:27.219611
License: Public Domain

SACHS, District Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion, particularly as it relates to the second year of Ms. Olson’s service. This was the critical period in which it was decided that she should not be retained as a school counselor. It was acknowledged at that time that she no longer was suffering from a diagnosed depression. Moreover, the “accommodations” urged by Dr. Lee in October 1994 were largely lacking in specificity. In effect, Dubuque was asked to remedy stressful conditions that might create “increased risk for relapse” into depression.
As stated in a current ruling by the Third Circuit, “compliance would depend entirely on (the employee’s) stress level at any given moment.” Gaul v. Lucent Technologies, *613Inc., 134 F.3d 576 (3rd Cir.1998). Such an “amorphous ‘standard’ ” is not usable to establish an accommodation mandated by law.