The issue of “Accommodations” can be a rather tricky one. Over the years, the term has expanded and been refined by various legal precedents, and the technical, term of art now carries some meanings which, if not understood properly, can entrap Federal and Postal employees into making wrong decisions while in the process of preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.
In simplistic terms, to be properly accommodated by an Agency, the Federal or Postal worker must be provided with an accommodating “X”, such that he or she can continue to perform all of the essential elements of one’s job. Further, temporarily modifying or suspending certain elements of a position description, for purposes of allowing for the Federal or Postal Worker to continue working, does not constitute an accommodation under the law.
This makes sense, if one stops to think about it, and for the following reason: such an arbitrary modification of work duties by a Supervisor or Manager, can just as arbitrarily be taken away. As such, temporary “accommodating” actions — while commendable and allowable in order to let the Federal or Postal worker continue to work — does not preclude the Federal or Postal worker from proceeding with his or her Federal Disability Retirement application.
Additionally, remember that an Agency’s effort for “Reassignment” is part of the Standard Form 3112D (Thus, the Form is entitled, “Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts”), and comprises part of the Agency’s attempt to “accommodate” the Federal or Postal employee. The issue of “reassignment” is a separate, but related one, and that issue is often influenced by the dependent clause which should not be overlooked in a Federal Disability Retirement application: that a person can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of a particular job, or any similar job.
By having a working knowledge of the issues surrounding Federal Disability Retirement laws, even in a rudimentary state of knowledge, one acquires a better chance of success. Approval is a long and arduous process. Knowing the lawand its impact is part of that process.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Accommodation and Light Duty | Tagged: ab, accommodation of federal employees, accommodation re-definitions according to opm disability case laws, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, cases where a federal employee is denied light duty, civil service eeoc and accommodation issues, Federal Disability, federal disability retirement, FERS disability retirement, ineffective accommodation in the federal workplace, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, legal accommodation for Postal workers, legal accommodation under fers disability rules, light duty accommodation versus disability retirement, light duty and reasonable accommodation, limited duty and accommodation of disabled federal employees, limited jobs for light duty employees, OPM disability retirement, owcp accommodations, owcp disability retirement, post office light duty, Postal disability, postal service disability retirement, reasonable accommodation of federal workers, representing federal employees from any us government agency, the tricky issue of accommodation in the federal workplace, unfair agency's actions against light duty workers, USPS disability retirement, usps light duty owcp, what to do when federal agency does not accommodate, what's really legal accommodation under the fers and csrs statues, when excessing light duty from usps then consider disability, when the federal government doesn't accommodate you | Leave a comment »
Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: SF 3112B
It is amazing how a Supervisor’s Statement is completed. Normally, it is completed without much thought; sometimes, it is completed with too much thought (and self-protective, CYA language concerning how much effort the agency attempted in “accommodating” the employee, when in fact little or no effort was made); more often than not, there is a last, parting shot at the employee — some unnecessary “dig” which often contradicts other portions of the statement; and, finally, every now and then, the Supervisor’s Statement is completed in the proper manner, with forethought and truthfulness.
Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management rarely puts much weight on a Supervisor’s Statement in making a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS — unless there is some glaring statement of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Application. This is rare, because it is a medical disability retirement, not a Supervisor’s disability retirement — meaning, that it is the medical opinion, not the opinion of a Supervisor, which is (and should be) most important.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: OPM Disability Actors - The Supervisor, OPM Disability Application - SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement for CSRS and FERS, OPM Disability Process - 1st Stage: OPM Disability Application | Tagged: assessment for postal disability retirement from supervisor, can the opm take seriously the integrity of federal supervisors?, cases where a federal employee is denied light duty, completing the sf 3112b with integrity, csrs disability benefits, cya philosophy in postal management, documentation in support of the disability retirement application - 3112b, don't always count with the support of an agency supervisor, ethical issues when filing the 3112b form, federal disability retirement, federal supervision bullying even in the opm disability application, federal supervisor response to employee work injury, fers disability application supervisor comments, FERS disability retirement, fers federal government disability retirement, filing a supervisor's opm statement with care and integrity, financial compensation for injured or ill federal workers, how much thought and effort put on the sf 3112b, how the sf 3112b should be filled out, if the supervisors tells lies in the opm disability application, injured light limited duty supervisor or 204b, injured postal workers at the mercy of their supervisors, more on the opm disability application supervisor's statements, neutralizing negative statements from supervisor's statements in sf 3112b, opm disability abuse of power adverse actions, opm disability and the supervisor who says everything's fine, opm disability annuity, OPM disability retirement, opm supervisor statement disability retirement, Postal management and supervisor positions, representing federal employees from any us government agency, responding to revengeful supervisors in the us postal service, SF 3112B Supervisor’s Statement, supervisor's statements and defamation, the 3112b should not be used as a means to get even with the employee, the challenge of ethical behavior in the federal workplace, the effortless sf 3112b, the injured federal worker and the unfair supervisor, the perception of accommodation among federal supervisors, the postal service supervisors and their claim of support, the revenge of a postal supervisor, the usual cya philosophy from the federal employment "leaders", unsympathetic federal supervisors and the plight of the injured federal worker, USPS disability retirement, usps supervisors and their impact on the postal employee's disability, usps workers who retire with a disability, when supervisors don't notice any medical condition in federal worker, when the supervisor files the form with fairness and balance, why the sf 3112b matters less than the doctor's statements, your supervisor and federal disability retirement | 1 Comment »