In a Federal Circuit Court case a few years ago, a dissenting opinion concerning Federal Disability Retirement benefits argued that it was “contrary to logic” to allow for Federal or Postal employees to become eligible for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS if they have been accorded light duty and allowed to remain in his or her official position while not performing many of the essential elements of the job.
The “logic” which is argued here is based upon the paradigm that, so long as one is allowed to continue to work and receive a paycheck, one should not be considered “disabled”. But such an argument refuses to acknowledge both the law (under the Bracey v. OPM decision), as well as good economic and social policy.
The fact is that under Federal Disability Retirement rules, laws and case-laws, what the Administrative Judges and Courts have acknowledged is that a Federal or Postal worker should not be subjected to the arbitrary whims and actions of a single supervisor or Agency; instead, there should be a criteria upon which a Federal or Postal worker should be able to rely upon. That objective criteria is in essence as follows: A Federal or Postal worker should have to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job. If not, that Federal or Postal worker is deemed “disabled” under the laws governing Federal Disability Retirement benefits.
While an Agency may allow for light duty, or temporary assignments, such light duty or temporary assignments should not preclude the obvious fact that the Federal or Postal worker continues to remain disabled. This way, there is an objective criteria of the law to be followed, which cannot be altered based upon the arbitrary whim of a Supervisor or an Agency, who may come along a year later and disallow all light duties or temporary assignments. Thus, in this case, the social and economic policy as envisioned under the Federal Disability Retirement rules, regulations and laws, are not only pragmatic, but logical.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Accommodation and Light Duty | Tagged: accommodation of federal employees, allowing a disabled federal employee to retire early, assigning a temporary duty to a postal employee, condition that prevents to perform the essential functions, criteria opm uses to figure out if an employee is disabled and unable to work, decisions by the federal circuit court of appeals, different laws and standards of disability, disability laws for postal workers, disability retirement opm legal accommodation, essential elements of jobs, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, federal laws retirement, going to federal circuit courts on federal employment disability issues, how to become eligible for federal disability retirement, important decisions in opm disability retirement by federal circuit courts, lawyer representing postal workers, light duty accommodation versus disability retirement, light duty and reasonable accommodation, limited duty assignments united states postal service, logical consistency in the whole fers disability retirement application, opm disability case laws, opm law firm and client consultation and feedback, opm law firm clients, owcp accommodations, philosophical pragmatism to the domain of opm disability law, reasonable accommodation of federal workers, social policies at work for disabled federal workers, temporary duties or assignment, temporary job assignments to injured federal employees, the disabled federal worker and accommodation issues at the workplace, the logical consistency of the federal disability laws in the the long run, the perception of accommodation among federal supervisors, the pragmatic social policy behind federal disability retirement laws, the sacred laws of doctrine, the scrutiny of the administrative law judge, unable to continue working as a federal worker, usps accommodation, what disability really means under laws that protect disabled federal employees, when the federal government doesn't accommodate you | Leave a comment »
