WELCOME EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY. IT'S OUR EVENT ON ADDRESSING OUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ISSUES IN THE WORKPLACE. I'M JESSICA CENTER. THE ACTING BRANCH CHIEF FOR THE ACCESS AND EQUITY BRANCH OF THE GUIDANCE AND EDUCATION AND MARKETING DIVISION IN THE OFFICE OF EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION. IT'S A MOUTHFUL. BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY IN OBSERVANCE OF NATIONAL DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH AND CELEBRATION OF THE 30th ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. FOR THIS OCCASION WE'RE EXCITED TO INVITE DAVID FRAM BACK TO THE NIH FOR A FOLLOW-UP REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TRAINING AND HE JOINED US EARLIER THIS YEAR AND WE'RE HAP DREE HAVE HIM BACK -- HAPPY TO HAVE HIM BACK. HE'S WITH THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW INSTITUTE AND RENOWN AND RESPECTED EXPERT IN EMPLOYMENT LAW WITH EMPHASIS ON THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. HE'S A GIFTED SPEAKER. AND EXPERIENCE TRAINING INVESTIGATORS AND ATTORNEYS AND ANYBODY INTERESTED IN THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. HE HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS ON DISABILITY ISSUES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WROTE BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT RESOLVING WORKPLACE QUESTIONS AND HOW AC DEALS WITH EMPLOYMENT ISSUES AND ANSWERING WORKPLACE QUESTIONS THE CHECKLIST AND PRACTICAL HINTS FOR HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL AND ALSO STARTED A GREAT SERIES ON HOW TO GIVE OUTSTANDING LEGAL PRESENTATIONS. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO INVITE YOU TO ATTEND THIS SESSION WE HOPE WILL BE HIGHLY INFORMATIVE FOR YOU. WE ANSWER WHEN OF YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. BEFORE WE GET STARTED A COUPLE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. THIS IS A VIDEOCAST ALL THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT WILL BE HANDLED ON OUR END FOR THOSE BROADCASTING TO YOU. IF YOU'RE HAVING AUDIO/VISUAL ISSUES WE ASK YOU FIRST CHECK WITH YOUR OWN CONNECTIVITY TO MAKE SURE THE ISSUE'S NOT ON YOUR END BEFORE WE REACHING OUT TO US AND WE'RE MONITORING THE BROADCAST. ALSO, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS DURING THE PRESENTATION, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO CONTACT ME VIA E-MAIL AND I WILL BE COLLECTING THOSE QUESTIONS AND DAVID AND A WILL GO OVER THEM AS MANY AS WE CAN AS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. MY E-MAIL IS JESSICA.CENTER@NIH.gov. AND WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO HAND IT OVER TO DAVID TO GIVE US OUR PRESENTATION TODAY. >> THANK YOU, JESSICA. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? >> I CAN. SOU SOUNDS GREAT. >> IT'S A TREASURE FOR ME TO BE WITH YOU ALL TODAY. I WAS SO EXCITED THIS MORNING AS YOU CAN TELL IN THE DISCUSSION WE HAD AND I'M MORE EXCITED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE GET TO DO ALL THE TOPICS. WE'LL COVER ALL THE TOPICS. WHAT'S A DISABILITY, WHO'S CONSIDERED QUALIFIED AND WE'LL SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN TO MAKING AN A.D.A. DECISION, WHO'S COVERED, WHAT IS IT YOU HAVE TO DO FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS COVERED. WE GOT SO MANY FUN THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. NOW, BEFORE WE GET IN TO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS, LET'S FIRST LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE OF THE REHABILITATION ACT AND A.D.A. LIKE I SAID THIS MORNING THERE'S SOME OF YOU WHO WERE THERE THIS MORNING. WE'LL BE REVIEWING SOME OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT AND MORE DETAIL ON OTHER ISSUES. LET'S FIRST TALK ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE. WHAT DOES THE REHABILITATION ACT AND A.D.A., WHICH ARE INTERCHANGEABLE FOR PURPOSES OF EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SOMETIMES I MAY SAY A.D.A. BUT REHAB ACT BUT WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY SAY YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON DISABILITY. WE'LL GO INTO WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A DISABILITY BUT YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON DISABILITY. THAT'S THE EASY PART. YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, THAT'S THE EASY PART. THE OTHER THING IS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL. THAT'S THE PART THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO BEYOND WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR OTHERS. WE FIRST HAVE TO LOOK AT WHO IS COVERED BY THE LAW AND WHO HAS A DISABILITY AND WHO IS CONSIDERED QUALIFIED AND THEN GET INTO THE QUESTIONS OF REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. HOW DOES IT ALL START? THOSE HERE THIS MORNING YOU KNOW HOW IT STARTS? WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL GOES IN TO THE OFFICE OF HIS OR HER SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER OR E.D.I. AND SAYING I'M NEEDING SOMETHING OR HAVING TROUBLE DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SOME CONDITION. COULD BE PHYSICAL, MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION, BUT I'M NEEDING SOMETHING OR HAVING TROUBLE DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SOME CONDITION. THAT'S HOW IT STARTS. AND AS WE'LL TALK ABOUT, THE COURTS AND THE EEOC WHICH IS THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT ENFORCES THE LAW SAY GENERALLY THE PERSON HAS TO START THE PROCESS BY SAYING, I'M NEEDING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SOME CONDITION. AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHAT SHOULD THE SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER OR E.D.I. DO IN RESPONSE? WHAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID IS THERE ARE FIVE MAGIC WORDS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED AND YOU KNOW THE FIVE MAGIC WORDS BECAUSE I'VE SAID THEM OVER AND OVER FOR SO MANY YEARS AND I THINK THEY'RE SO GOOD IN SO MANY CONTEXTS. HOW CAIN HELP YOU? NOT TELL ME ALL ABOUT YOUR ZAL BUT HOW CAIN -- CAN I HELP YOU. FOCUSSING ON PERFORMANCE. SAY WE HAVE A RESEARCHER WHO SAYS I CAN'T COMPLETE ALL MY REPORTS THAT YOU NEED ME TO COMPLETE BECAUSE OF MY DEPRESSION. WHAT SHOULD THE SUPERVISOR SAY? SHOULD THEY SAY TELL ME ABOUT YOUR DEPRESSION. MY BROTHER-IN-LAW HAS DEPRESSION -- NO. THE SUPERVISOR SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM TALKING ABOUT THE MEDICAL CONDITION, INSTEAD ASK HOW CAN I HELP YOU AND WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO YOUR JOB? OR SAY A CLERICAL EMPLOYEE WHO SAYS I KNOW I HAVE TO INPUT ALL THE DATA BUT I CAN'T DO AS MUCH AS YOU NEED ME TO BECAUSE OF MY CARPEL TUNNEL. I NEED TO MOVE SLOWER. WHAT SHOULD THE SUPERVISOR DO? TELL ME ABOUT YOUR CARPEL TUNNEL? NO. HOW CAN I HELP YOU. WHAT DO YOU NEED? OR IN THE COVID-19 CONTEXT WHAT WE'RE SEEING ALL THE TIME IS SOMEBODY WITH AN UNDERLYING CONDITION I KNOW YOU'RE BRINGING PEOPLE BACK TO THE WORKPLACE BUT SAY BECAUSE OF MY ASTHMA OR OBESITY I'M AT HIGH RISK. I CAN'T COME BACK TO THE WORKPLACE. THEY SHOULD SAY HOW CAN I HELP YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR WHETHER THERE'S A QUICK SIMPLE EASY FIX. IF THERE ISN'T ONE, I WANT TO JUST DO IT. I WANT TO DO IT AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM SO WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS JOB. IF THERE IS A QUICK SIMPLE FIX, SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS SHOULD DOCUMENT SIX THINGS. EITHER DOCUMENT WHAT THE PERSON SAID WHEN THEY FIRST CAME IN LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S USE THE COVID EXAMPLE I GOT ASTHMA AND OBESITY AND I KNOW YOU'RE CALLING PEOPLE BACK TO THE WORKPLACE BUT WE DOCUMENT WHAT THE PERSON SAYS. NEXT I'D DOCUMENT I SAID HOW CAIN HELP YOU? THEN I'D SAY WHAT THE PERSON SAID HE OR SHE NEEDS. WE'RE ASSUMING THAT PERSON'S GOING SAY I NEED FULL TIME WORK AT HOME. THEY MAY NOT SAY IT. IN THE COVID ACQUISITIONS I'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE PERSON HAS NOD SAID I NEED TO WORK FULL TIME AT HOME. WHAT THEY SAID IS I NEED A MODIFIED SCHEDULE SO I'M NOT IN THE OFFICE WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN THE OFFICE. OR THEY'VE SAID, I NEED A MODIFIED SCHEDULE SO I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE RUSH OUT TRANSPORTATION OR THEY'VE SAID I NEED YOU TO CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE WORKPLACE SOME PHYSICAL SETTING IN THE WORKPLACE LIKE HOW CDC HEAD PUT UP BARRIERS AND MOVE PEOPLE'S DESK. IT COULD BE SOMETHING QUICK, SIMPLE AND EASY. IF IT IS, I SAID OKAY. I DIDN'T GET IN ALL THE THINGS I'M ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT OR WHAT'S A DISABILITY AND WHAT IS QUALIFIED OR TECHNICAL REQUIRED AS TECHNICAL ACCOMMODATION. I JUST SAID OKAY. FIVE, I, THE SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER OR EDI DID ASK FOR ANYTHING RED CAL OR TO DOCUMENT -- MEDICAL OR TO DOCUMENT ASTHMA. I SAID OKAY AND DIDN'T ASK FOR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SIMPLE AND EASY, I THINK IT'S SUCH A SMART IDEA FOR EMPLOYERS TO STAY AWAY FROM ASKING FROM MEDICAL THINGS AND YOU'LL SEE WHY THIS IS SO HELPFUL ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET IN THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S A DISABILITY. THE FACT YOU STAYED AWAY FROM MEDICAL THINGS CAN BE KEY IN SO MANY SITUATIONS. THOUGH I'M NOT GIVING LEGAL ADVICE. REMEMBER, NIH HAS GREAT LEGAL ADVISORS AND HAVE YOU A FABULOUS EDI TEAM, I'M NOT GOING TO BE GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE BUT I WILL TELL WHAT YOU ARE GOOD PRACTICES AND WHAT AREN'T. THIS IS A GOOD PRACTICE FOR SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS TO STAY AWAY AWAY FROM MEDICAL STUFF AND DOCUMENT YOU STAYED AWAY FROM IT AND NUMBER SIX IF I MADE A QUICK SIMPLE, EASY FIX I FOLLOWED UP WHETHER IT WAS A DAY OR MONTH LATER OR HOWEVER LONG IT WILL TAKE TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S WORK I WENT BACK AND ASKED, IS IT WORKING. NOT TELL ME ABOUT YOUR ASTHMA BUT IS IT WORKING BUT IF IT'S NOT SUPERVISOR NEEDS TO RE-ENGAGE. START WITH HOW HE WILL -- ELSE CAN I HELP YOU. THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION WHERE YOU AS AN EMPLOYER ARE CHOOSING TO GO BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE A.D.A. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE IN THE COVID-19 CONTEXT A LOT OF EMPLOYERS ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO WORK AT HOME. THOUGH PE -- THE PERSON MAY NOT BE DOING ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT IN FACT THERE'S EVERYTHING RIGHT BUT THERE IS ONE THING I'D DOCUMENT FROM BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO DOCUMENT YOU MIGHT NOT BE DOING ALL YOUR ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS RIGHT NOW BUT WE DON'T MIND. WE'RE HAPPY ABOUT IT BUT HERE'S WHY I'D DOCUMENT IT BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE OF COVID YOU'LL BE ALOUFD CONCERN ALLOWED TO WORK AT HOME. WE UNDERSTAND YOU MAY NOT BE DOING ALL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE WORKING REMOTELY. I WON'T HOLD IT AGAINST THEM BUT I WANT IT TO BE CLEAR. I'M SURE THE EMPLOYEE WANTS IT TO BE CLEAR YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE A.D.A. AND SOME FUNCTIONS THEY'RE NOT DOING RIGHT NOW. IF THERE WAS A QUICK FIX THERE'D BE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND BY ALLOWING THE PERCH TO WORK AT HOME HERE'S WHAT WE DOCUMENT AND IF THERE'S NOT A QUICK, SIMPLE FIX, WE GET INTO THE INS AND OUTS OF THE A.D.A. AND THE REHABILITATION ACT. BY STARTING WITH THE QUESTION OF IF THE PERSON IS EVEN RECOVERED. WELL, IT'S THE PERSON WITH THE DISABILITY. SO LET'S START THIS AFTERNOON BY TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS AND WHAT'S NOT A DISABILITY. I REALIZE THERE'S A LOT OF EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS YOU WOULD NOT BE DETERMINING THE DISABILITY ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER. THEY SHOULD STAY OUT THEIR MEDICAL STUFF. GENERALLY IT WILL BE E.D.I. THAT WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION WHETHER SOMEONE HAS A DISABILITY BUT IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A DISABILITY. ON THE E.D.I. WEBSITE AND JESSICA, STOP ME IF I'M SAYING ANY OF THIS INCORRECTLY BUT ON THE WEBSITE YOU HAVE A LINK THAT TAKES YOU TO THE MATERIALS WE'LL BE USING. >> IF YOU GO TO OUR WEBSITE TO EDI.NIH.gov THAT'S AN EVENT PAGE FOR TODAY'S EVENT AND SCROLL DOWN AND YOU'LL SEE TODAY'S EVENT BUT ON THE EVENT PAGE WE HAVE LINK TO THE RESOURCE DOCUMENTS AND AS DAVID MENTIONED, PRIMARILY THIS SESSION WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE CHECKLISTS BUT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THAT PAGE SO AGAIN IF YOU GO TO EDI.NIH.gov ON THE MAIN PAGE SCROLL UP TO UPCOMING EVENTS AND TRAINING AND THE FIRST ITEM WILL BE THIS SESSION. >> SO AS JESSICA MENTIONED THERE'S TWO DOCUMENTS, ONE IS CHECKLIST WE'LL USE NOW AND IF YOU WANT MORE DETAILED INFORMATION YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THAT ONE AS WELL AND THAT'S A REALLY FUN ONE TO READ. READ IT TONIGHT. DON'T READ IT BEFORE YOU GO TO SLEEP THOUGH BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FALL ASLEEP BECAUSE IT'S THAT EXCITING AND YOU'RE GOING TO WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BUT FOR THOSE IN THIS SESSION, DOWNLOAD THE CHECKLIST BECAUSE WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM. I'LL BE REFERRING TO THE PAGE NUMBERS IN THE CHECKLIST AND GIVE YOU LOTS MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT'S IN THE MATERIALS. WE'LL START OFF WITH CHECKLIST A WHICH IS WHAT A PERSON HAS A DISABILITY. AS I MENTIONED, YOU'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO BE DETERMINING DISABILITY BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHO'S COVERED. SO WHO IS COVERED UNDER THE A.D.A.? WELL, IT'S SOMEBODY WHO GOT AN IMPAIRMENT THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY ON THE CHECKLIST A, DEFINITION OF A DISABILITY. DOES IT LIMIT A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY? DO THEY HAVE A REPORT OF A DISABILITY, IS THIS PERSON REGARDED AS HAVING A DISABILITY? LET'S GO THROUGH THESE TERMS BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY INTERESTING CASES ON WHAT'S IT MEANS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED. AND AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE A DISABILITY, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ENTITLED. THIS IS THE VERY FIRST THING EDIs GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IF THERE WASN'T A QUICK, SIMPLE, EASY FIX. IN FACT THE FIRST THING IS THERE AN ACTUAL DISABILITY AND THE FIRST THING IS GOING TO BE IS THERE AN IMPAIRMENT. WHAT IS THAT IMPAIRMENT? AN IMPAIRMENT IS ANY DISORDER. IT COULD BE A PHYSICAL DISORDER, IT COULD BE A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER BUT ANY DISORDER IS GOING TO BE AN IMPAIRMENT. LET'S TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT COVID-19. WOULD THAT ITSELF BE A DISORDER? OF COURSE IT WOULD. IS COVID-19 AUTOMATICALLY A DISABILITY? WELL, NO. BECAUSE REMEMBER IT'S GOT TO BE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY? WHAT DO WE KNOW FOR COVID-19? FOR SOME PEOPLE THEY GET NO SYMPTOMS AND IF I GET NO SYMPTOMS AT ALL AND COVID-19 DID I HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT BUT DID IT LIMIT A MAJOR LIFE AC FIST FOR ME? -- ACTIVITY FOR ME? NO. AND WE'RE AWARE MANY PEOPLE WITH COVID-19 HAVE SEVERE FATAL IN SOME CASES SYMPTOMS. IS THAT A DISABILITY? OF COURSE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN IMPAIRMENT LIMITING A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. WE CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER COVID-19 IS A DISABILITY. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THIS PERSON AND THIS PERSON'S SYMPTOMS BUT ON THIS VERY FIRST QUESTION, IS THERE AN IMPAIRMENT, YES. IT'S AN IMPAIRMENT. IMPAIRMENT IS THE EASE YEARS TERM BECAUSE ANY DISORDER IS AN IMPAIRMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, BACK PROBLEMS, IS AN IMPAIRMENT? YES. THERE'S LOTS OF CASES. AND I'LL TELL YOU THE NAME OF THE CASE YOU'RE NOT EXPECTING TO MEMORIZE IT BUT IF YOU WANT TO YOU CAN JOT IT DOWN. IT'S A CASE THAT SOUNDS INTERESTING TO YOU. THERE'S CASES THAT SAY, BACK PROBLEMS ARE INHERENT. ARE THEY AUTOMATIC DISABILITIES? NO, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON HOW SEVERE THE PROBLEM IS. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST A COMPANY CALLED TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING WHERE THE GUY HAD BACK AND KNEE PROBLEMS. IS THAT AN IMPAIRMENT? YES. THE EMPLOYER SAID WAIT A SECOND, THIS GUY'S GOT BACK AND KNEE PROBLEMS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS DOCTOR ON HOW TO LIFT THINGS AND THE COURT SAID IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE COURT SAID ALL THAT MATTERS IS DOES -- DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM OR THEY CAN GO AWAY OR THEY CAN GET TREATMENT OR TAKE MEDICATIONS TO MAKE THEM GO AWAY. MATTERS IS DOES THE HAVE THEM. THERE'S CASES INVOLVING MIGRAINE HEADACHES. IS THAT AN IMPAIRMENT? SURE. ANY IMPAIRMENT IS AN IMPAIRMENT. THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS NOT IMPAIRMENT ARE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OR TRAITS. FOR EXAMPLE THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST WIN SONG RADIOLOGY WHERE THE WOMAN WAS 4'5" AND SUED UNDER THE A.D.A. AND SAID JUDGE, I'M SHORT AND THE JUDGE SAID WELL, YOU ARE BUT IT'S NOT AN IMPAIRMENT, IT'S A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC. IF SHE HAD DWARFISM THAT WOULD BE A DISORDER. THE FIRST QUESTION IS IS THERE SOME DISORDER? THERE WAS A CASE THIS YEAR AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHERE A PERSON WOULD BE CARRYING A FIREARM AND THEY SAID THIS GUY'S REALLY HOSTILE. WE THINK HE HAS A TERRIBLE PERSONALITY. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM A GUN. HE SUED UNDER THE REHAB ACT AND SAID YOU'RE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME BECAUSE YOU'RE PERCEIVING ME AS HAVING A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. THE COURT FIRST LOOKED AT IS THERE REALLY A PERCEPTION OF AN -- WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD A HOSTILE PERSONALITY. THEY THOUGHT HE WAS KIND OF A MEAN PERSON THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE A GUN TO. THERE HAS TO BE A START OF THINK OF A DISORDER. WHAT DID -- ABOUT PREGNANCY. IS THAT A DISORDER? A REGULAR NORMAL PREGNANCY, IS THAT A DISORDER? NO. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF CASES THAT HAVE SAID REGULAR NORMAL PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISORDER BUT COULD YOU HAVE A DISORDER CAUSED BY THE PREGNANCY? THE ANSWER SO THAT IS YES. IF SOMEONE HAS A SUSCEPTIBILITY TO MISCARRIAGE THERE IS DISORDER. INTEREST WAS A CASE AGAINST MEMPHIS GLASS, LIGHT AND WATER AND IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT WAS THE EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY FOR THE COMPANY AND SHE HAD A HISTORY OF MISCARRIAGE AND THE DOCTOR SAID YOU HAVE TO STAY IN BED THE REMAINING 10 WEEKS OF YOUR PREGNANCY BECAUSE OF YOUR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO MISCARRIAGES. SHE ASKED TO STAY HOME AND THEY SAID NO AND SHE SUED UNDER THE A.D.A. AND SHE SHOWED SHE HAD A DISABILITY. IS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO MISCARRIAGE AN IMPAIRMENT. THE COURT SAID YES, IT IS. THEY STILL LOOKED AND IF THERE'S A PRE DISPOSITION TO A DISEASE THE COURT SAID IT'S NOT COVERED BY THE A.D.A. THE FACT YOU MAY GET A DISORDER IS NOT ENOUGH NOW TO BE A DISABILITY. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND BECAUSE THERE WAS A CASE THAT CAME OUT LAST YEAR RELEVANT TO THE COVID-19 CONTEXT. THERE WAS A CASE WHERE EEOC CALLED A MASSAGE COMPANY AND A MASSAGE THERAPIST SAID I WANT TO GO TO GHANA TO VISIT MY SISTER AND THE EMPLOYER, IT'S NOT A COVID CASE BUT YOU'LL SEE THE IMPLICATIONS IN A SECOND AND THE EMPLOYER SAID WE DON'T WANT YOU GOING TO GHANA BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID YOU MAY GET EBOLA VIRUS IF YOU GO. WELL, SHE WENT AND SHE WAS FIRED AND SUED UNDER THE A.D.A. THE COURT FIRST HAD TO ANALYZE IF SHE HAD AN IMPAIRMENT. THE COURT SAID NO. SHE DOESN'T HAVE ONE UNDER THE A.D.A. AND THE EMPLOYER FIRED HER BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID SHE'D GET AN IMPAIRMENT. IF AN EMPLOYER SAID TO PEOPLE WE DON'T WANT YOU GOING TO COVID HOT SPOTS AND THE PERSON CHOOSES ANYWAY TO GO TO A COVID HOT SPOT AND THE EMPLOYER SAID WELL, WE'RE NOT TAKE UG BACK. I'M NOT SAYING NIH WOULD EVER DO THIS BUT IF AN EMPLOYER DID THAT WOULD THAT BE AN A.D.A. CASE? IF THEY SAID WE'RE NOT TAKING YOU BACK BECAUSE YOU HAVE COVID THAT WOULD BE AN IMPAIRMENT BUT A SUSCEPTIBILITY IS NOT AN IMPAIRMENT. WHAT ABOUT THE VOLUNTARINESS. IS THAT RELEVANT TO WHETHER SOMEONE HAS AN IMPAIRMENT? NO. JUST LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE GUY WHO HAS A BAD BACK BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS DOCTOR. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S VOLUNTARILY SELF-INFLICTED. WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER YOU HAVE THE EXAMPLE. JUST A HYPOTHETICAL. SAY A FAMOUS FOOTBALL PLAYER GOES INTO A NIGHTCLUB IN NEW YORK CITY WITH A LOADED GUN IN HIS POCKET AND SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT. HYPOTHETICALLY, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL BUT WHEN I HEARD THE NEWS OF THAT, IMMEDIATELY MY HEAD WENT TO I WARNED IF IT'S AN A.D.A. CASE. WHAT IF THEY SAID WHAT YOU HAVE A HOLE IN YOUR FOOT. WHAT THIS THE EMPLOYER SAID YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF, THAT'S WHY YOU GOT THE IMPAIRMENT. WOULD THAT MATTER THAT HE DID IT TO HIMSELF? NO. HE HAS AN IMPAIRMENT. IMPAIRMENT IS EASY. THE FACT HE DID IT TO HILL SELF MAY BE IRRELEVANT WHETHER HE HAS A DISABILITY AND MAY BE REALLY RELEVANT LATER WHETHER HE'S QUALIFIED TO DO THE JOB LIKE WHETHER IT INVOLVES USING A FIREARM IT MAY BE REALLY RELEVANT TO THAT BUT WHETHER HE HAS AN IMPAIRMENT IT'S IRRELEVANT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME DISORDER. NEXT QUESTION, ONCE WE KNOW THERE'S A DISORDER, UNDER CHECKLIST IS IT AFFECTING SOMETHING THAT IS ONE OF LIFE'S MAJOR ACTIVITIES. THIS IS SOMETHING E.D.I. WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT ARE LIFE'S MAJOR ACTIVITIES. WALKING AND OTHERS AND YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE? CONGRESS ADDED LIKE WALKING AND INTERACTING WITH OTHERS AND CAKE FOR YOURSELF, THEY ADDED INTERNAL BODILY FUNCTIONS. THEY SAID THOSE ARE ALSO MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES. THIS REALLY EXPANDS WHO'S COVERED BY THE A.D.A. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE HAS AN IMPAIRMENT AFFECTING HER ENDOCRINE SYSTEMS IS ENOUGH BECAUSE THEY'RE MAJOR LIFE AND CELL GROWTH AND REPRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS ARE MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES. LET'S TALK ABOUT CELL GROWTH. SINCE IT'S A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY SAYS THE EEOC VIRTUALLY ANYONE WITH CANCER WILL HAVE AN A.D.A. DISABILITY BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPAIRMENT, OF COURSE CANCER'S AN IMPAIRMENT AND LIMITING CELL GROWN NORMAL CELL GROWTH. OUR FIRST QUESTION WAS THERE AN IMPAIRMENT, NEXT QUESTION IS THERE A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY AND THE INTERNAL FUNCTIONS AND MARRIAGE LIFE ACTIVITIES LOAD TO EXPANSIVE DECISIONS ON THE PART WHERE THE PERSON HAD IN ONE CASE DIABETES AND THE COURT SAID, EEOC SAID VIRTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE A DISABILITY BECAUSE IT VIRTUALLY ALWAYS IS SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING PRIME FUNCTIONS. SO THERE'S GOT TO BE AN IMPAIRMENT. IT HAS TO AFFECT A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. COURTS HAVE ALSO GONE BEYOND WHAT THE COURT SAID AND THE COURT ADDED WHAT ARE MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES FUTURE FOR EXAMPLE, ONE CASE WHERE THE COURT ANALYZED WHETHER USING A COMPUTER IS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. IS THAT PART OF YOUR DAILY LIFE? COURT SAID WE AGREE. IT'S A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. SOME COURTS HAVE SAID IT'S TOO NARROW TO BE MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. THERE WAS A CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SAID I CAN'T EAT CHOCOLATE. THE COURT SAID DESPITE WHAT YOU AND I MAY THINK THEY SAID NO, IT'S NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO BE A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. SO AGAIN, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT E.D.I. WOULD BE LOOKING AT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS PERSON HAS A DISABILITY. FIRST, IS THERE SOME YIP -- IMPAIRMENT, IS THERE A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY AFFECTED BY THE IMPAIRMENT AND AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE, IS THE PERSON SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED IN THE MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. WHAT I SAID SO FAR THESE ARE EASY WHETHER THERE'S AN IMPAIRMENT OR MARRIAGE -- MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY AND YOU WOULDN'T BE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS IF YOU'RE A SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EDIs GOING TO DO. THEY'LL LOOK AT HOW SERIOUS IS IT TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATION. HOW SERIOUS DOES IT HAVE TO BE? I HAVE TO TELL YOU, EEOC THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT WRITES THE RULES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BEING VERY EXPANSIVE. SOME COURT DECISIONS SAID IT HAS TO BE PRETTY SERIOUS. EEOC IS NOT REQUIRING IT TO BE TERRIBLY SERIOUS IF SOMEBODY HAS A LOT OF PAIN WHILE THEY WALK, EEOC SAY IT'S ENOUGH TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED. WE'RE LOOKING HERE, BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE AT WHAT THE PERSON CAN DO. WHAT THE PERSON CAN DO. THIS IS WHERE EDI WILL ASK THE QUESTIONS. IF YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE SAYING I NEED AN ACCOMMODATION AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU HAVE A DISABILITY, THEY'D BE ASKING WHAT'S THE IMPAIRMENT AND MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY, AND WHAT IS IT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO AND COMPARING WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO TO THE AVERAGE PERSON. WHAT CAN THE AVERAGE PERSON DO AND NOT DO. WHAT ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK AT. WHAT IF I TAKE MEDS FOR MY CONDITION. I FUNCTION WELL SAY I HAVE DEPRESSION BUT I'M ON DEPRESSION MEDS AND I FUNCTION WELL WITH MY DEPRESSION MEDS. HOW SHOULD EDI BE LOOKING AT WHETHER I HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING IMPAIRMENT? THE LAW SAYS LOOK AT THE PERSON WITHOUT THE MEDS. SO IF YOU'RE THE EMPLOYEE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONDITION WOULD BE LIKE WITHOUT MEDS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS ANSWER. THIS IS WHAT COURTS AND EOC LOOKS AT? I'LL TELL YOU ANOTHER QUESTION EDI WOULD BE LOOKING AT IS HOW LONG IS THE CONDITION GOING LAST AND I GOT THE QUESTION SEVERAL TIMES FROM NIH. SOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ON THE SESSION WE DID BACK IN APRIL AND YOU'LL REMEMBER THIS QUESTION COMING UP. WHAT ABOUT SHORT TERM CONDITIONS THAT LAST FOR TWO OR THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS. IS THAT LONG ENOUGH TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING? I HAVE TO TELL YOU, GENERALLY, THE ANSWER'S PROBABLY NOT. THE EEOC REGULATIONS SAY IT'S GOT TO BE SEVERAL MONTHS BUT IF IT'S A REALLY SEVERE IMPAIRMENT, HAVING REALLY SEVERE CONSEQUENCES, THEN MAYBE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. SO GENERALLY THE RULE I USE IS MORE OR LESS THREE MONTHS. AGAIN, NOT LEGAL ADVICE BUT THAT'S THE RULE I GENERALLY USE UNLESS THE PERSON IS SEVERELY LIMITED IN WHICH CASE I MAY LOWER IT. FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE CASE ON MEMPHIS, LIGHT, WATER AND POWER WHERE THE PERSON NEEDED TOTAL BED REST FOR THE FINAL 10 WEEKS OF HER PREGNANCY AND HAS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO MISCARRIAGE. IS 10 WEEKS LONG ENOUGH BUT THE COURTS SAID IT'S LONG ENOUGH. IT MAKES SENSE. SHE WAS CONFINED TO COMPLETE AND TOTAL BED REST FOR THE REST OF THE PREGNANCY. LESS THAN THREE MONTHS WAS ENOUGH IN THAT CASE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I HAVEN'T SEEN COURTS GO BELOW TWO MONTHS OR HAD A CONSTITUTION THAT LASTED SIX -- A CONDITION THAT LASTED SIX WEEKS OR EVEN SEEN CASES SAYING TWO MONTHS IS LONG ENOUGH BUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS THAT PREGNANCY CASE COURT SAID THAT WAS LONG ENOUGH. SO AGAIN, THAT'S GENERALLY THE RULE IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME A CONDITION HAS TO LAST. IN THE COVID CONTEXT, I HAVE COVID-19 DO I HAVE A DISABILITY? WE SAID WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT MY SYMPTOMS ARE AND HOW LONG MY SYMPTOMS ARE GOING TO LAST. THANK GOODNESS FOR MOST PEOPLE THE SYMPTOMS DON'T LAST FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE YOU KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO BUT THEY GENERALLY HAVE NOT LASTED FOR MONTHS FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE. WE'RE ALSO SEEING FOR SOME PEOPLE THE SYMPTOMS DO LAST MAYBE THEY TEST NEGATIVE BUT STILL HAVE LINGERING SYMPTOMS FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. COULD THAT BE LONG ENOUGH? YEAH. WE COULD SEE SOMEBODY WHO HAS A RECORD OF COVID WHERE THE SYMPTOMS DID LAST FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS THAT THAT PERSON MIGHT WE WILL HAVE DISABILITY UNDER THE A.D.A. OTHER THINGS -- JESSICA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> A QUESTION CAME IN AND IT WAS PERTINENT AS A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING YOU MENTIONED RECENTLY IN TERMS OF A DISABILITY AND WHAT MIGHT BE COVERED. ONE QUESTION IS CANCER IS A DISABILITY UNDER THIS AND IF COVERED AS A DISABILITY HOW DO YOU SEE IT ACCOMMODATED IN THE WORKPLACE? >> SOMETHING LIKE CANCER? >> MM-HMM. >> THE COURTS SAID AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EEOC SAYS BECAUSE INITIALLY THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO GO WITH AND THEN COURTS WHAT THEY SAY YOU HAVE KNOW WHAT I THEY'VE SAID IN THE ISSUE. COURTS SAID WE WON'T GO IN LABELS. COURT CASES SAID JUST BECAUSE A PERSON HAS CANCER WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASSUME IT'S A DISABILITY BUT EEOC SAYS CANCER IS VIRTUALLY ALWAYS A DISABILITY. WHY IS THAT PERSON IN THE WORKPLACE? IT COULD BE BECAUSE OF MY CANCER I NEED RELIEF TO GET TREATMENT. MAYBE LEAVE FOR MY KEMM KEMMO -- CHEMOTHERAPY OR COMES UP AS STRAIGHT DISCRIMINATION CASES. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, AND FRANKLY IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE EMPLOYERS WOULD DO THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE EMPLOYEES, WELL, REJECTED EMPLOYEES AND MY EMPLOYER DIDN'T HIRE ME BECAUSE ONCE THEY FOUND OUT I HAD A HISTORY OF CANCER THEY SAID WE'RE NOT SO KEEN ON VUG WORK FOR US -- HAVING YOU WORK FOR US BECAUSE YOU MAY BE TOO EXPENSIVE ON OUR INSURANCE. IT COULD AB ACCOMMODATION OR STRAIGHT DISCRIMINATION CASE. FOR PURPOSES WHATEVER THE QUESTION WAS ASKING THE POSITION IS IT'S VIRTUALLY ALWAYS A DISABILITY. WHAT ABOUT EPISODIC DISORDER? THIS IS A VERY WAY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE DISORDER TO ANSWER AND IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW OFTEN MIGRAINE HEADACHES ARE OR HOW OFTEN LIGHT ASTHMA ATTACKS OCCUR. WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THEY DO OCCUR, ARE THEY SPECIALLY LIMITING? THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. THERE WAS A CASE LAST YEAR AGAINST A COLLEGE WHERE AN EMPLOYEE GOT ANXIETY ATTACKS. THEY WERE DEBILITATING. THE COURT SAID THAT'S ENOUGH TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING. THAT'S HOW COURTS NOW LOOK. IT'S NOT WHAT THEY USED TO DO BUT NOW THEY LOOK AT EPISODIC DISORDERS. BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 WE LOOKED AT IMPAIRMENT OR MAJOR LIFE LIMITATION. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTO THE QUESTIONS, WHAT CAN YOU DO, WHAT CAN'T YOU DO, HOW LONG'S IT GOING TO LAST AND HOW'S IT COMPARE TO THE ARG PERSON. WHAT WOULD -- AVERAGE PERSON AND WHAT WOULD THE CONDITION BE LIKE WITHOUT MEDS EVEN WITH THE MEDS YOU'RE DOING FINE IF WITHOUT THE MEDS YOU WOULD BE LIMITED SAID THE COURTS. WE LOOKED AT THE DISABILITY AND THEN LOOK AT THE RECORD OF. I DON'T HAVE A DISABILITY BUT I USED TO. AM I COVERED? YES, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A RECORD OF AN IMPAIRMENT THAT LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS, WE'VE SEEN FEW CASES FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT RECORD OF WHERE SOMEBODY HAS ALLEGED I HAVE A RECORD OF A DISABILITY. I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE AND MORE WHY BECAUSE OF COVID. I THINK THIS IS WHERE A LOT OF THE I HAVE COVID CASES ARE GOING TO LAND WHERE THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE COVID RIGHT NOW BUT HAVE A RECORD OF COVID THAT DID SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT OR MAYBE DOES SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PERSON WHO HAS ONGOING SYMPTOMS AND YOU'RE HEARING THIS MORE AND MORE. YOU ALL ARE HEARING IT MOST OF ALL BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT IN THE THICK OF IT ALL. WE'RE HEARING MORE AND MORE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ONGOING LUNG AND FATIGUE ISSUES BECAUSE OF COVID. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE'LL BE ON THE LOOK OUT FOR IN TWO OR THREE YEARS WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS I HAVE A RECORD OF HAVING COVID IT DID OR STILL DOES AFFECT MY MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES AND STILL HAVE ONGOING LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF IT AND NEED AN ACCOMMODATION US -- ACCOMMODATIONS BECAUSE OF IT. WE LOOKED AT THE CURRENT DISABILITY AND RECORD OF DISABILITY ON PAGE 4 AND 5. THE THIRD CATEGORY BOTTOM OF PAGE 5 IS REGARDED AS. WE SAID THERE'S THREE CATEGORIES, ACTUAL, RECORD OF AND REGARDED AS. REGARDED AS DOESN'T LOOK AT WHETHER I HAVE A CONDITION THIS LOOKS AT WHETHER YOU'RE PERCEIVING ME AS HAVING A DISABILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 5 ON THE BOTTOM YOU'LL SEE RECORD OF IS EXTREMELY BROAD. REGARDED AS COVERS SOMEBODY WHO SAYS YOU'RE SUBJECTING ME TO A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION BECAUSE OF SOME IMPAIRMENT. THAT'S WHAT REGARDED AS MEANS. IT'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. IT DOESN'T MEAN I SHOW I'M LIMITED BUT IT MEANS YOU TOOK SOME ACTION BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED IMPAIRMENT. THAT'S IT. AND IF I SAID MY SUPERVISOR GAVE ME AN OFFICE WITH A TERRIBLE VIEW, EVERYBODY ELSE GETS A VIEW OF THE TOREST AND I HAVE THE -- FOREST AND I HAVE THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE OF MY IMPAIRMENT AND COULD BE A REGARDED AS CASE. AND THIS IS WHY I SAY TO SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS STAY AWAY FROM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S MEDICAL CONDITION BECAUSE THAT'S A DEFENSE SAY THE COURTS. IF THE DECISION MAKER DIDN'T EVEN KNOW OR SPECULATE OR DIDN'T START TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S MEDICAL CONDITION YOU CAN'T REGARD THEM TO THAT IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A DEFENSE IN THE CASE. THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. WE DIDN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THEIR MEDICAL CONDITION. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REASONS WHY I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS TO STAY OUT OF SOMEBODY'S MEDICAL LIFE. JESSICA, DON'T YOU WANT SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS STAYING AWAY FROM A MEDICAL CONDITION? >> I AGREE. ONE THING THAT ALSO COMES UP SOMETIMES WITH REASON ACCOMMODATION IS A MAJOR WILL MAKE A DECISION BASED ON SOME AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE AND MacA DECISION THAT'S NOT -- MAKE A DECISION THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY FAVORABLE. I KNOW MY EMPLOYEE IS GOING THROUGH CHEMOTHERAPY TREATMENT. THERE'S TRAINING FOR MY STAFF BUT I WOULDN'T OFFER IT TO THAT EMPLOYEE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUT MORE ISSUES ON THEIR PLATE. AND YOU CAN MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ON WHAT I COULD OR COULDN'T DO BASED ON WHAT EVER INFORMATION I GAVE YOU AND THAT'S ANOTHER INTERESTING ASPECT WE SEE SOMETIMES. AND I CAN SAY STAY AWAY FROM MEDICAL STUFF. WHAT CAN SOMEBODY DO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN TO THE SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE AND WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THEIR MEDICAL STUFF. I GET THIS ALL THE TIME WHERE A PERSON COMES IN AND SAYS I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. WHAT SHOULD A SUPERVISOR DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT? I JUST SAID STAY AWAY FROM TALK MEDICAL STUFF. I'M NOT SAYING TO TELL THEM TO SHUT UP AND GO AWAY. WHAT WOULD I SAY? THE FIVE MAGIC WORDS, HOW CAN I HELP YOU? THAT'S WHAT I'D SAY. MY CHEMO AND STARTS TALKING ABOUT THE PERSON AS YOUR SUPERVISOR, NOW I KNOW THIS MAY SOUND INSENSITIVE, I DO KNOW THAT BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE PERSON IS AS YOUR SUPERVISOR I NEED TO FOCUS ON HOW I CAN HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT LEAVE, LET'S TALK ABOUT LEAVE BUT I CAN'T GET IN TO TALKING ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL CONDITION WITH YOU. AS YOUR SUPERVISOR I NEED TO FOCUS ON HOW TO HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOUR SUPERVISOR IS SUPPOSED TO DO EN -- ANYWAY. I KNOW IN CERTAIN WORKPLACES WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TURN OVER AND PEOPLE ARE THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND PEOPLE ARE FRIENDS AND IT GOES TO THE INTERPERSON JALE RELATIONSHIPS AND SOMEONESH INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THEY MENTION THEY HAVE A CONDITION AND THIS IS THE LAWYER IN ME COMING OUT, TELL ME HOW I CAN HELP YOU, WHATEVER IT IS YOU THINKCONDITION AND THIS IS THE LAWYER IN ME COMING OUT, TELL ME HOW I CAN HELP YOU, WHATEVER IT IS YOU THINK YOU NEED TO HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB, BUT IF IT'S MEDICAL SITUATION, GO TELL JESSICA. YOU'LL KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT? A SUPERVISOR SHOULD STAY OUT OF TALKING ABOUT MEDICAL INFORMATION AND THAT'S HARD WHEN YOU'RE NIH WHEN THEY'RE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IT'S HARD TO TELL THEM NOT TALK ABOUT MEDICAL INFORMATION. IT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE SUPERVISING, MY RULE IS FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE. IF YOU'RE THE EMPLOYEE AND YOU HEAR IT FROM YOUR SUPERVISORS SAYING HEY, I WANT TO FOCUS OUT IN. >> AND IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEIR SUPERVISOR OR MANAGERS OR EMPLOYEES. THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A DISABILITY. INCLUDING WHAT KIND OF THINGS EDI WOULD BE ASKING FOR AND WHY THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS. I SAY THIS BECAUSE SO OFTEN I HAVE EMPLOYEES SAY TO ME, THEY'RE ASKING ME FOR THIS OR THAT INFORMATION WHY SHOULD I TELL THEM? BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW SO THEY CAN FIGURE OUT IS THERE IMPAIRMENT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY. THAT'S WHY THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO THE DETERMINATION. SAME FOR PLIES. ONCE THEY KNOW OF A DISABILITY, THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PERSON IS QUALIFIED. NOW WE MOVE ON TO CHECKLIST B IN YOUR MATERIALS WHICH IS PAGE 6. AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE PROCESS. I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S REQUIRED AND WHAT'S NOT REQUIRED AS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BUZ YOU CAN'T GET THERE BEFORE WE FIRST LOOK AT THIS STEP THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE PERSON HAS THE BACKGROUND TO DO THE JOB AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IT WILL IDENTIFY WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB WHICH IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT POINT FROM WHERE WE GET TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. CHECKLIST B IS THE PERSON QUALIFYING. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EDI IS LOOKING AT THE JOB. UP TO NOW THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING WHETHER THE PERSON HAS THE DISABILITY BUT NOW THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE JOB ITSELF. THE FIRST QUESTION HERE IS ON PAGE 6 DOES THE PERSON HAVE THE SKILLS, THE EDUCATION, THE EXPERIENCE TO DO THE JOB? DO THEY HAVE THE LICENSES REQUIRED TO DO THE JOB. IF THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT QUALIFIED. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE CASES INVOLVING A SCHOOL TEACHER WHO DIDN'T HAVE TEACHING CERTIFICATION. SHOULDN'T THERE BE A BASIC LICENSE. SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED. THERE'S A CASE AGAINST THE RAILWAY WHERE THERE WAS SOMEONE APPLYING TO BE A MECHANIC BUT NEVER PASSED THE MECHANICAL APTITUDE TEST AND THE COURT SAID HE'S NOT QUALIFIED. THAT'S THE FIRST THING EDI WOULD BE LOOKING AT, DOES THE PERSON HAVE THE BASIC BACKGROUND. HERE'S THE CATCH. IF THERE'S A REASON THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE THE CERTIFICATION OR MEET THE QUALIFICATION STANDARDS WE HAD FOR THIS JOB, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DISABILITY AND THEN NIH HAS TO SHOW WHY YOU HAVE THE STANDARD AND WHY YOU HAVE THAT LICENSE. THAT STANDARD IS JOB RELATED. FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY I HAVE A STANDARD AND THERE'S BEEN A BUNCH OF CASES LIKE THIS THAT SAY IN ORDER TO BE A TRUCK DRIVER YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE IF THE REASON I DON'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE IS BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY, WHAT DOES THE EMPLOYER HAVE TO SHOW? THEY'LL HAVE TO SHOW IT'S JOB RELATED AND CONSISTENT WITH BUSINESS. HOW DO I SHOW THIS? THE EASE YEFIEST WAY IS FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES IT. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST J.B. HUNT AND YOU'VE SEEN THEM ALL OVER ON THE HIGHWAY, AND THERE WAS A CASE INVOLVING THIS EXACT ISSUE. THAT WAS THEIR DEFENSE, FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES YOU HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE AND THE COURT SAID THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S AN EASY WAY TO SHOW SOMETHING IS JOB RELATED IS WHEN FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES IT. IF THE STANDARD YOU'RE OPPOSING SOMEBODY IS BECAUSE OF DISABILITY BUT CAN'T SHOW IT'S NECESSARY TO DO THE JOB YOU'LL LIKELY LOSE ON A CASE LIKE THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST A COMPANY CALLED WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES AND IT WILL INVOLVE A FORK LIFT DRIVER WHO IS DEAF. THE HAD BEEN WORKING FOR WORTHINGTON INDUSTRY FOR YEARS AND HAD BEEN WORKING THERE 10 YEARS WITH NO INJURIES NO ACCIDENTS THEN A NEW HIGHER UP CAME ON BOARD AND SAID I THINK OUR FORK LIFT DRIVERS NEEDS TO PASS A HEARING TEST. HE WAS DEAF AND COULDN'T PASS THE HEARING TEST. THEY SAID WELL, YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB. FIRST QUESTION HERE IS DOES HE HAVE THE SKILLS, EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, ANSWER IS NO. HE DIDN'T MEET THE STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY AND WORTHINGTON SAID SHOWS US IT'S JOB RELATED AND HE CAN'T DO THAT JOB BECAUSE OF THAT STANDARD. WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED? THEY LOST. HE'D DONE THE JOB FOR 10 YEARS WOULD INCIDENTS AND INJURIES. THAT'S A CASE FROM THIS YEAR. IF YOU HAVE A STANDARD FOR A JOB THAT SCREENS SOMEBODY BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY, THE COURTS ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE STANDARD IS JOB RELATED AND CONSISTENT WITH BUSINESS NECESSITY. NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6 WE LOOKED AT SOMEONE HAVING THE SKILLS, BACKGROUND, EXPERIENCE, LICENSES. THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB AND WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS? WHAT IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION? WHAT DOES QUALIFIED MEAN? IT MEANS I CAN DO MY ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR NIH OR ANY EMPLOYER TO BE ANALYZING THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT MAKES A FUNCTION ESSENTIAL. LET'S LOOK AT THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE COURTS LOOK THE IN DETERMINING WHAT MAKES A FUNCTION ESSENTIAL. THE ONE THAT COMES UP MOST OFTEN AND COURTS LOOKED AT MOST OFTEN IS IS THE JOB DESCRIPTION. THEY REALLY LOOK AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION. THERE'S BEEN SO MANY CASES EITHER WOULD BE OR LOST BASED ON THE FUNCTION BEING ESSENTIAL IS IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. IF IT IS IT HELPS THE EMPLOYER SHOW IT'S AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. WHEN IT'S NOT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION, THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT LEADS TO A LAWSUIT. WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT ACCURATE JOB DESCRIPTIONS, I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BOTH, THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. YOU WANT THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS TO BE ACCURATE SO THERE'S NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING ON WHAT THE JOB IS. I THINK IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT FOR A JOOB -- JOB DESCRIPTION TO BE ACCURATE. THERE WAS A CASE THIS YEAR AGAINST CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER COLLABORATION WITH CO-WORKERS WAS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THE EMPLOYEE HAD A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER AND WOULD NOT COLLABORATE WITH WORKERS AND THERE WAS A CASE IN THE ARMY THIS YEAR WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER WORKING ON SITE WAS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION FOR A HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIALIST. WELL, FIRST THING THE EEOC DID WAS PICK UP THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND IT SAYS WORKING ON SITE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE JOB. IT'S NOT THE BE ALL, END ALL BUT A HELPFUL PIECE OF EVIDENCE. IT SOUNDS LIKE HELPFUL TO THE EMPLOYER BUT ALSO TO THE EMPLOYEE SO EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATIONS ARE ALIGNED TO WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE JOB. THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE. THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL CASES THAT ARE JUST LIKE THIS, THERE'S A CASE OF A PHARMACIST AND THE QUESTION WAS IS GIVING INJECTIONS, GIVING INOCULATIONS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A PHARMACIST'S JOB? SOME OF US WILL REMEMBER YEARS AGO WHEN PHARMACISTS DIDN'T GIVE VACCINATIONS BUT WE PROBABLY KNOW NOW IT'S OUR PHARMACIST WE'LL GO TO WHEN THERE'S A SAFE, EFFECTIVE COVID-19 VACCINE SO PHARMACISTS DO IT ALL THE TIME NOW BUT THEY DIDN'T USED TO AND RITE AID SAID WE WANT OUR PHARMACISTS TO NOW BE ABLE TO GIVE INJECTIONS. THIS PHARMACIST WHO WORKED FOR RITE AID SAID I CAN'T GIVE INJECTIONS. I HAVE A PHOBIA TO NEEDLES AND I CAN'T GIVE INJECTIONS. THE FIRST THING HE SAID WAS RITE AID YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE MY JOB FUNCTION AROUND EVEN IF IT MEANS A PERSON CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY THE COURTS SAID YES, EMPLOYERS CAN CHANGE JOBS AROUND FOR LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASONS. THIS IS ONE MORE REASON WHY YOU WANT DECISION MAKERS DECIDING WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE JOB TO NOT KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT MEDICAL CONDITIONS BE INSTEAD BE FOCUSSED ON HOW DO I HELP YOU DO THE JOB. YOU DON'T WANT EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE TO BE CHALLENGED AS YOU WERE DOING THAT TO TRY TO GET RID OF ME BECAUSE OF MY DISABILITY. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS A USEFUL THING FOR EMPLOYERS. FIRST THING THE COURT LOOKED AT HERE WAS DID RITE AID HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE HIS JOB AROUND? YES. DID THEY CHANGE IT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY? NO. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE HAD A PHOBIA TO NEEDLES. THE QUESTIONS BECAME IS GIVING INJECTIONS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS JOB? WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE IF IT'S ESSENTIAL HE'S GOT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT EVEN IF IT'S A NEW FUNCTION. IS IT ESSENTIAL? THE FIRST THING THE COURT LOOKED AT, WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS? THE JOB DESCRIPTION. YOU KNOW WHAT, RITE AID HAD THE FORESIGHT TO UPDATE THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION WHEN THEY CHANGED THE JOB AROUND. NOW, THE REASON I THINK THIS IS SO INTERESTING IS THERE WAS ANOTHER CASE THAT CAME OUT ALSO LAST YEAR ON THIS ALMOST EXACT SAME ISSUE. THERE'S A DIFFERENT COMPANY THOUGH IT WAS WAL-MART. BUT IT WAS A PHARMACIST WHO HAD A PHOBIA TO NEEDLES WHO SAID YOU CAN'T CHANGE MY JOB AROUND AND EVEN IF YOU CAN, IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL I GIVE INJECTIONS. NOW, IN THAT CASE, THE COURT AGAIN SAID FIRST THING WE'LL LOOK AT IS THE JOB DESCRIPTION. THEY LOOKED AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION FROM WAL-MART AND YOU KNOW WHAT WAL-MART DIDN'T PUT IN THERE GIVING INJECTIONS. THEY FORGOT TO UPDATE THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND THE COURT SAID, WAL-MART, YOU LOSE. WE DON'T THINK IT'S SMSHL BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EVEN -- ESSENTIAL BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EVEN PUT IT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. THE POINT IS EMPLOYERS NEED TO UPDATE JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND FRANKLY IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S INTEREST IF THE JOB DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. COURTS LOOK AT THESE JOB DESCRIPTIONS. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE JOB DESCRIPTION HAS TO BE TERRIBLY DETAILED. IN FACT I OFTEN CAUTION EMPLOYERS AGAINST BEING TOO DETAILED IN A JOB DESCRIPTION BECAUSE MOST EMPLOYERS WHO I'VE BEEN LUCKY ENOUGH TO WORK WITH THEY DON'T KEEP THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. THEY'RE NOT CONSTANTLY EVALUATING JOB DESCRIPTIONS. IF I HAD MY WAY, I'D SAY EVERY DAY LOOK AT YOUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS BUT OF COURSE NOBODY CAN DO THAT. I'D SAY AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR THE EMPLOYER AND SUPERVISOR AND EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND SEE IF IT'S STILL ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. ONE QUESTION I OFTEN GET HERE IS DOES EVERY SINGLE THING HAVE TO BE IN A JOB DESCRIPTION. DOES MEETING DEADLINES HAVE TO BE IN A JOB DESCRIPTION? THE COURT SAID THERE'S SOME THINGS SO BASIC TO ALL JOBS THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN A JOB DESCRIPTION LIKE MEETING DEADLINES. I TELL YOU, IF IT'S MORE THAN JUST MEETING DEADLINES AND IF IT'S REALLY RIGID DEADLINES TWICE A MONTH, I WOULD PUT THAT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. IF IT'S WORKING AS PART OF THE TEAM I WOULD PUT THAT AS PART OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION. WE SAW A CASE WHERE SOMEONE SAID COLLABORATION WAS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. BAD JOB DESCRIPTIONS HURT. THERE'S LOTS OF CASES WHERE EMPLOYERS LOST BECAUSE THE JOB DESCRIPTION DIDN'T LIST THEY'RE NOT SAYING IT'S NATIONAL LIKE IN THE WAL-MART CASE. THEY DIDN'T LIST GIVING INJECTIONS. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST FEDEX WHERE THEY SAID LIFTING 75 POUNDS IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION BUT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION IT DIDN'T SAY LIFTING 75 POUNDS. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST A COMPANY WHERE THERE WAS AN HE HAD TORE OF THE EMPLOYER -- EDITOR OF THE EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER AND THE QUESTION WAS DOES SHE HAVE TO DO ON SITE VISITS TO DO HER INTERVIEWS. YOU PICK UP THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND IT DIDN'T SAY A WORD ABOUT ON SITE IN PERSON INTERVIEWS. THEY SAID WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO THOSE REMOTELY. THERE WAS A CASE OF A POLICE OFFICER AGAINST A CITY IN THE U.S. AND THEY HAD BEEN AN OFFICER FOR YEARS. NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN A NEW CHIEF OF POLICE COMES ON BOARD AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS MUCH OF THE TIME A NEW HIRE UP COMES ON BOARD AND CHANGES THINGS AROUND. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED A NEW POLICE CHIEF CAME ON BOARD AND SAID I THINK IT SHOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO TAKE A TASER SHOT AND NOT JUST TO DELIVER A TASER SHOT BUT TO TAKE A TASER SHOT AND TO BE PEPPER SPRAYED. WELL, THIS PARTICULAR POLICE OFFICER SAID I HAVE A HEART ISSUE. AND BRINGS IN A NOTE FROM HER DOCTOR AND HAS A HEART ISSUE. SHE CAN'T GET TASER SHOCKED AS PART OF THE NEW TEST. THE NEW CHIEF OF POLICE SAYS YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED BECAUSE IT'S NOW AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF YOUR JOB TO GET TASER SHOT. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FIRST THING THE COURT DID WAS? LOOKED AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION. GETTING TASER SHOT AND PEPPER SPRAYED WAS NOT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EVEN PUT IT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. I DO A LOT OF TRAINING OF WHETHER YOU ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS, I CAN'T SAY, ME BEING A LAY PERSON, I CAN'T SAY IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL TO BE TASER SHOT OR PEPPER SPRAYED BUT I CAN SAY IF YOU THINK IT'S ESSENTIAL YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION. SO THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS WHAT'S IN THE JOSH DESCRIPTION. TOP OF PAGE 7, ANOTHER IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS HOW MUCH TOMB IS SPENT DOING THAT FUNCTION. THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TO A COURT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR THING, WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR FUNCTION IS OR ISN'T ESSENTIAL. IS IT 50% OF THE TIME OR 1% OF THE TIME. DOES IT HAVE TO BE 50%? 40%? NO. THERE WAS A CASE WHERE AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMED A PARTICULAR FUNCTION A THIRD OF THE TIME AND THE COURT SAID THAT'S ENOUGH TO BE ESSENTIAL. A CASE INVOLVED HOSPITAL. THE EMPLOYEE WAS A CAR SEAT COORDINATOR FOR THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE TEACHES NEW PARENTS HOW TO USE CAR SEATS AND SAID I NEED TO WORK AT HOME. THE EMPLOYER SAID, BUT YOU HAVE TO MEET WITH NEW PARENTS AND TEACH THEM HOW TO USE A CAR SEAT. SHE SAID THAT'S PART OF MY JOB, I SUPERVISE STAFF. PART OF MY JOB IS MEETING PARENTS. IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL. AND THE COURT SAID HOW MUCH TIME IS SPENT MEETING WITH NEW PARENTS AND SHE SAID A THIRD AND THE COURT SAID IT WAS ENOUGH. THERE'S BEEN CASES SAYING WAY LESS THAN A THIRD COULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE A FUNCTION SMSHL. THERE WAS A -- ESSENTIAL. THERE WAS A VASE INVOLVING A -- A CASE INVOLVING ST. ANTHONY'S HEALTH CENTER IN THE MIDWEST WHERE THE CHIEF OF PSYCHOLOGY FOR THE HEALTH CENTER WHO I AM HEAVILY, SOME ARE REALLY HEARTBREAKING CASES. THE GUY WAS IN THE EARLY STAGES OF ALZHEIMER'S AND SAID I CAN STILL DO MOST MY FUNCTIONS BUT CAN'T DO CERTAIN THINGS LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES BUT THEY ONLY TAKE 15% TO 30% OF MY TIME. THE COURT SAID THAT'S STILL ENOUGH TIME. IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE 50% OR 30% THE COURT SAID 15% TO 30% WAS STILL ENOUGH TIME. INTERESTINGLY THE COURT SAID IF IT WAS ONLY 5% THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TIME. THIS IS WHAT COURTS DO ALL THE TIME. I DON'T MIND AS LONG AS A COURT IS CONSISTENT I DON'T MIND WHEN COURTS FILL IN THE BLANK BECAUSE IT GIVES ME GUIDANCE. THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING IF I WAS IN EDI I'D LOOK AT NOT JUST IS IT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION BUT HOW MUCH TIME IS SPENT DOING THAT JOB FUNCTION, 10%, 15%, 25%. IF IT'S 5% THE EMPLOYER HAS A BAD ARGUMENT IT'S ESSENTIAL. GENERALLY. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T DONE VERY OFTEN BUT THE NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST ON PAGE 7 BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARE SO BAD IF THE PERSON CAN'T DO THEM. THIS COMES UP IN SAFETY ISSUES WHERE YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY WHERE A PERSON HAS TO DO A FUNCTION BUT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE TERRIBLE IF THE PERSON CAN'T DO IT. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT ESSENTIAL. FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE AGAINST TRINITY HEALTH CENTER WHERE THERE WAS A THERAPIST IN THE CARDIOPULMONARY DEPARTMENT. THOSE LISTENING TO ALL THESE CASES, THESE ARE ALL COURT OF APPEALS, THE DISTRICT COURT, LOWEST LEVEL, COURT OF APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT. IT'S BELOW THE SUPREME COURT. ALL THE DECISIONS I'M MENTIONING TODAY ARE IMPORTANT CASES. THIS IS A RESPIRATORY THERAPIST IN THE CARDIOPULMONARY DEPARTMENT AND SHE SAID I CAN'T DO CPR. THEN WENT OFF TO SAY, BUT, CPR IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. FOR HER AS A RESPIRATORY THERAPIST AND SAID IT'S SO RARE IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL. THE COURT SAID YOU'RE A RESPIRATORY THERAPIST IN A CARDIOPU CARDIOPULMONARY DEPARTMENT. IF SHE DOES IT ONCE A YEAR IT'S ESSENTIAL SAID THE COURT. THE CONSEQUENCES MAKE IT ESSENTIAL EVEN ONLY ONCE A YEAR. THEY'RE ALL FACTORS WE LOOKED AT INCLUDING THE CONSEQUENCES. THERE WAS A CASE A POLICE CASE THERE WAS AGAINST THE CITY OF DORRAL, D-O-R-A-L. WHERE A POLICE LIEUTENANT SAID I CAN DO ALL MY JOB'S FUNCTIONS EXCEPT MAKE LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS BUT THAT HAPPENS RARELY SO IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL. THE COURT SAID THE CONSEQUENCES MAKE IT ESSENTIAL. THESE ARE ALL THE FACTORS EDI WOULD LOOK AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION, THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT THE QUESTIONS THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. WHAT DO PEOPLE IN THE JOB REALLY DO IN DETERMINING WHAT'S ESSENTIAL AND WHAT'S MARGINAL? SO ON PAGE 7 THAT'S OUR QUESTION, CAN THIS PERSON WITH A CHECKLIST OF DISABILITY GIVEN THE FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS WE IDENTIFIED, CAN THAT PERSON DO THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS? CAN THEY DO THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB? WOULD HELP FROM US OR WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION? LET'S TALK ABOUT CERTAIN FUNCTIONS THAT COME UP A LOT AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HOW IT APPLIES TO JOBS YOU ARE SUPERVISE. ARE THEY ESSENTIAL OR NON-ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS LIKE GETTING A LOT WITH PEOPLE IN THE WORKPLACE. NOT COLLABORATING BUT GETTING ALONG IN THE WORKPLACE. IS THAT ESSENTIAL? THERE'S BEEN CASES WHERE SOMEBODY HAD A MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION AND COULDN'T GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE IN THE WORKPLACE. YOU KNOW WHAT COURTS ARE GENERALLY SAYING? YES, GETTING ALONG WITH CO-WORKERS AND HANDLING STRESS, BEING PROFESSIONAL WITH CUSTOMERS IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE JOB. IN A CASE TWO YEARS AGO THE COURT SAID TREATING CUSTOMERS PROFESSIONAL IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REP AND THEY WERE HANGING UP ON CUSTOMERS WHEN THEY COMPLAINED AND THE COURT SAID YOU HAVE TO GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE IN THE WORKPLACE AND WITH SUPERVISORS THERE'S BEEN SOME CASES WHERE SUPERVISORS SAID I CAN'T DEAL WITH SUB ORDER -- SUBORDINATE? IS THAT A CASE? NO, BEING A SUPERVISOR MEANS SUPERVISING SAYS THE COURT. THAT MEANS GETTING ALONG WITH PEOPLE AND SUPERVISORS OR PEOPLE YOUR SUPERVISING. THE OTHER ONE THAT COMES UP ALONG IS ATTENDANCE. IS ATTENDANCE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION? JESSICA, MY GUESS IS YOU IN EDI HAVE HAD TO HANDLE A LOT OF CASES BASED ON OTHER PEOPLE IN POSITIONS LIKE YOURS AT OTHER AGENCIES YOU HAD TO HANDLE A LOT OF CASES WHERE YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS JUST NOT SHOWING UP FOR WORK. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ATTENDANCE IS OR ISN'T AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE COURTS DIFFER FROM THE EEOC. THE COURTS ARE CONSISTENTLY SAYING REGULAR RELIABLE ATTENDANCE IS ESSENTIAL WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. EEOC IS SAYING THE ATTENDANCE ITSELF IS NOT A FUNCTION OF THE JOB SO IT CAN'T BE AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THAT'S HOW IT BREAKS DOWN AND WHY FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY PERSPECTIVE INITIALLY YOU HAVE TO GO WITH EEOC AND IF IT GOT TO COURT, COURTS ARE SAYING TAPEDANCE IS -- ATTENDANCE IS A FUNCTION. I THINK THIS IS GUTSY OF ME BUT I DON'T THINK THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER ATTENDANCE IS A FUNCTION OR ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. I THINK WHAT PEOPLE MEAN BY THIS WHAT THEY'RE GET SATH WHETHER PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON SITE IS A FUNCTION OR ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THAT'S WHAT MORE AND MORE COURTS ARE STARTING TO LOOK AT. NOT ATTENDANCE BUT PHYSICAL PRESENCE SO THIS IS WHAT I WOULD BE DOING IF I WERE THERE ANALYZING WHETHER PHYSICAL PRESENCE IS ESSENTIAL. YOU CAN MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT THAN ATTENDANCE IS ESSENTIAL. WHAT AS THE MEAN? PERFORMANCE? PHYSICAL PRESENCE IS SAYING A PERSON HAS TO BE ON STOOIT TO DO THESE -- ON SITE TO DO THIS FUNCTION. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST AMERICAN AIRLINES THAT INVOLVED A COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST FOR AMERICAN. SHE HAD M.S. AND SAID I NEED TO WORK AT HOME. BUT AMERICAN AFTER MERGING WITH U.S. AIRWAYS THEY SAID WE NEED THE JOB DONE ON SITE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO CRISIS MANAGEMENT. THE COURT AGREED, ONSIDE PRESENCE WAS ESSENTIAL. THERE WAS A CASE WHERE THE COURT SAID SOMEBODY WHO IS AN AUDITOR REVIEWING HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS WITH A NEED TO ACCESS CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL RECORDS FROM SECURED COMPUTERS HAD TO DO THAT ON SITE. SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU NEED TO BE ON SITE DOING THOSE FUNCTIONS. >> DAVID, THIS IS JESSICA, I WANTED TO JUMP IN WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE FAR OUT ON A LIMB AS YOU PREFACED. THAT IS TYPICALLY THE ANALYSIS POINT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IF ATTENDANCE IS AT ISSUE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AS AN NATIONAL OR WHETHER ATTENDANCE IS THE BARRIER TO THE EMPLOYEE'S LIMITATIONS. THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES MORE ALONG THE LINES OF IS THE BARRIER WORKING AT ALL, WHETHER IT'S ON SITE OR WHEREVER MEANING THEY CAN'T ATTEND TO WORK OR IS THE BARRIER WORK ON SITE OR IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION OR AT A PARTICULAR TIME? THOSE ARE THE MORE NITTY-GRITTY ANALYSIS POINTS THAT END UP BEING MORE SALIENT TO THE CONVERSATION. >> THAT'S SUPERB. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT ANALYSIS IS. JESSICA, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU, YOU'RE HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABO ABOVE WHAT MANY OTHERS ARE DOING AND THE WAY YOU LAID IT OUT IS PERFECT. LOOKING AT WHETHER THE PERSON CAN DO THE FUNCTION SOMEWHERE ELSE OR WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON SITE. NOW, EEOC HAS COME OUT WITH GUIDANCE UNDER COVID SO IT'S ALL WITHIN THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS ANALYZING ON SITE WHETHER ON SITE IS OR ISN'T REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN JOBS. LOOK, WE'VE ALL GONE BEYOND. EVERY EMPLOYER IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS GONE BEYOND WHAT'S WHAT'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN LETTING THEM WORK AT HOME. SOME CAN BE PARTIALLY DONE AT HOME BUT NOT FULLY AND SOME PARTS MAY NOT TO BE DONE ON SITE. ONE OF THE THINGS EEOC LOOKED AT BEING ESSENTIAL THEY'LL LOOK AT WHETHER IN A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THIS PERSON WHO BEEN WORKING AT HOME WHETHER YOU STILL GIVE THIS PERSON A GOOD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION WITHOUT NOTING HE OR SHE HAS NOT BEEN DOING THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID IN THEIR OUTREACH WEBINAR IN MARCH, THEY SAID IF YOU GIVE THIS PERSON SATISFACTORY REVIEWS AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE JOB FULLY AT HOME, THAT'S GOING TO BE EVIDENCE THAT ON SITE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE JOB. SO IT'S A REAL WAKE UP CALL IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT ON SITE PRESENCE IS REQUIRED FOR A JOB, THAT FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WE'VE BEEN HAPPILY LETTING WORK AT HOME, THAT IN THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THAT PERIOD YOU NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRING SOME OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS THAT COULDN'T BE DONE AT HOME. HOW ABOUT STAYING AWAKE IS THAT AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION? EEOCs POSITION IS YOU HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING BEING AWAKE IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION THE PERSON IS ARE THEY DOING THEIR DUTIES OR NOT. THAT'S EEOCs POSITION. COURTS SAID STAYING AWAKE AND BEING CONSCIOUS IS A POSITION AND A MANAGER WAS FALLING ASLEEP AND THE COURT SAID HE'S NOT QUALIFIED AND WAS DISCIPLINE FOR FALLING ASLEEP ON THE JOB. WHAT ABOUT QUANTITY STANDARDS ARE THOSE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS? AND THE ISSUE WAS THE PERSON NEEDS A REDUCTION IN HOW MANY WIDGETS OR REPORTS THEY PRODUCE. EEOC SAID YES, IF YOU REQUIRE THIS NUMBER AND THE QUOTA IS BE AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THERE WAS A CASE DEFENSE FEMA WHERE A GUY APPLYING TO BE A FEMA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST WHO WAS GOING TO BE DEPLOYED FOR 300 DAYS A YEAR AND ON THE FIRST DAY OF WORK SAID HE COULDN'T TRAVEL AND IS TRAVELLING AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF HIS JOB AND THE EEOC SAID YESTERDAY AND THERE WAS A MECHANIC WHO SAID HE CAN'T TRAVEL AND THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE BECAUSE HE HAS TO GO TO THE AIRCRAFT. THESE ARE EXAMPLES. LET'S LOOK AT A DIFFERENT CASE OF EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF WHETHER SOMEBODY'S QUALIFIED, THAT IS IS THE PERSON DOING THEIR FUNCTIONS? WE LOOKED AT THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT TELL US WHAT ARE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. NOW LET'S LOOK AT PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT TELL US WHETHER THE PERSON IS QUALIFIED TO DO THOSE FUNCTIONS. WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE? PERFORMANCE. THEIR ACTUAL PERFORMANCE AS REFLE REFLECT IN WHAT? SCREAM IT OUT. THE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND EVALUATIONS. WHAT DOES SUPERVISOR SAY ABOUT THIS PERSON IN THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS? THERE'S BEEN SO MANY FEDERAL SECTOR CASES, PRIVATE SECTOR CASES SAYING PERFORMANCE REVIEW IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. CASES AGAINST HUD AND FERC. VIRTUALLY EVERY FEDERAL AGENCY YOU CAN THINK OF WHERE THE PERSON WAS GETTING FULLY SUCCESSFUL, EEOC IS SAYING THAT'S STRONG EVIDENCE THE PERSON IS QUALIFIED. EEOC SAID WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW IS GOING TO BE EVIDENCE ON WHETHER THE PERSON IS QUALIFIED AND WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB. WHEN I TRAIN SUPERVISORS I TRAIN SUPERVISORS YOU GOT TO BE ACCURATE JUST LIKE WITH THE JOB DESCRIPTION, YOU GOT TO BE ACCURATE WITH THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND NEED TO BE AC RAT WITH -- ACCURATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW. YOU MAY THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M NOT BEING SYMPATHETIC TO THE EMPLOYEE BUT I THINK IT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO KNOW WHERE THE PERFORMANCE IS NOT UP TO STANDARDS. SEE, THE PROBLEM IS SOMETIMES SUPERVISORS WILL SAY, OH, I FEEL SORRY FOR THE GUY SO I WON'T GIVE AN ACCURATE PERFORMANCE REVIEW. YOU KNOW WHAT, COURTS SAID THAT'S DISCRIMINATION. THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST KHOU TELEVISION IN HOUSTON WHERE THE COURTS SAID TO THE FACT THE SUPERVISOR DIDN'T GIVE THE [INDISCERNIBLE] BECAUSE SHE FELT SORRY FOR THE EMPLOYEE WAS DISCRIMINATORY. IF SHE AHEAD SHE WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM THE TRUTH. IT'S IMPORTANT FROM AN EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE FOR SUPERVISORS TO GIVE HONEST, ACCURATE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS. IT WILL BE EVIDENCE WHETHER SOMEONE IS OR ISN'T QUALIFIED. ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT SAYS IN SOMEONE'S DOCTOR'S NOTE. THEY'LL SAY CAN'T DO X, Y, Z. THE COURTS ARE SAYING THE DOCTOR'S NOTE IS RELEVANT IF THOSE WERE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB. THERE WAS A CASE THIS SUMMER AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY WHERE THEY SAID YOU CAN DO,000 THINGS AND THE EEOC SAID YOU CAN'T DISOWN YOUR OWN DOCTOR'S NOTE. YOU HAVE MAKE SURE YOU'RE DOCTOR'S NOTES ARE ACCURATE BECAUSE I CAN'T DISOWN IT. MORE EVIDENCE IS WHAT I SAID IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. MAYBE I APPLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND SAY I'M DISABLED AND IN THE REHAB CONTEXT I SAY I'M QUALIFIED. THE SUPREME COURT SAID YES AS LONG AS YOU CAN EXPLAIN HOW THE STATEMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT. THE MOST COMMON WAY OF EXPLAINING IS IT I COULD DO THE FUNCTION IF THERE WAS AN ACCOMMODATION. I MAY BE QUALIFIED BECAUSE OF THE ACCOMMODATION HERE'S THE PROBLEM FOR EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY SAY THIS WAS A LIE BUT THIS THE TRUTH. THERE WAS A CASE JUST THIS YEAR THE PERSON SAID THE REASON I SAID THIS TO SOCIAL SECURITY IS BECAUSE THE REASON I DID IS MY ATTORNEY TOLD ME TO. ISN'T THAT CONSISTENT THAT IF COURTS ARE SAYING YOU CAN'T DENY THE TRUTH OF SOMETHING. THEY SAID IT SO THE EMPLOYER WITH REGARD TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION TAKING IT AT JOB DESCRIPTION AND THEY SAID WE'LL TAKE THE PERFORMANCE AT FACE VALUE AND NOW SAYING TO THE EMPLOYEE, YOU CAN'T DEKNOW THE TRUTH OF YOUR DOCTOR'S -- DENY THE TRUTH OF A DOCTOR'S NOTE. THESE THINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS TO KNOW. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE COVERAGE ISSUES. DOES THE PERSON HAVE A DISABILITY IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED AND NOW WE LOOK AT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. THEN THE PERSON SAID I'M QUALIFIED AND CAN DO THE JOB WITHOUT HELP FROM YOU. THAT'S HOW EDI WOULD LOOK AT THE PERSON. CAN THE PERSON DO THE FUNCTION NOW? ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE PERSON SAYS I DO NEED HELP YOU FROM, THAT'S WHERE WE LOOK AT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. WHAT HAS TRIGGERED THE PROCESS. WHAT SHOULD THE EMPLOYER BE DOING AS PART OF THE PROCESS? AND WHICH KINDS OF ACCOMMODATIONS ARE AND AREN'T REQUIRED. LET'S LOOK AT CHECKLIST C ON PAGE 8 AND ASK OURSELVES IS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION? IT'S CHANGING SOMETHING IN THE WORKPLACE SO THIS PERSON WITH THE DISABILITY CAN DO THESE FUNCTIONS. CHANGING SOMETHING IN THE WORKPLACE. IT COULD BE A PHYSICAL BARRIER, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE COVID CONTEXT IT COULD BE PUTTING UP THE PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS OR SEPARATING THE DESKS. IT COULD BE CHANGING A STEP TO A RAMP. WHAT COMES UP MOST OFTEN IS CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WHERE THE WORK IS DONE AND HOW MANY BREAKS DO I GET. THERE WAS A CASE IN FEDEX WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SAID I NEED TO COME IN LATER BECAUSE OF MY MEDS AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'LL COME IN AND THE COURTS SAID THAT'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND THE CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAD DIABETES WHERE THEY NEEDED ORANGE JUICE BY THE CASH REGISTER AND CHANGING THE POLICY WOULD BE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SO ON PAGE 8, REASONABLE ACCOMODATION IS CHANGING SOMETHING IN THE WORKPLACE SO THE PERSON CAN DO THE JOB. FIRST ON THE CHECKLIST IS WHICH IS ENTITLED TO ACCOMMODATION? ACTUAL OR AND IF I'M ONLY COVERED BECAUSE I'M REGARDED AS DISABILITY, I DON'T GET THE COMBINATION. THAT'S WHAT THE COURTS ARE SAYING AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS. NEXT HAS THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS BEEN TRIGGERED ONE OF TWO WAYS. EITHER BECAUSE OF THE PERSON ASKED FOR SOMETHING OR BECAUSE YOU IF YOU'RE THE SUPERVISOR KNOW THIS PERSON'S GOT SOME CONDITION? IT'S EITHER OBVIOUS OR MAYBE THE PERSON HAS DISCLOSED IT IN THE PAST AND HAVE YOU REASON TO KNOW THE PERSON IS NEEDING SOMETHING. THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG THINGS THAT SPARK THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS. MIDDLE OF PAGE 8. THE PERSON REQUESTED SOMETHING FOR IT'S AN OBVIOUS CONDITION AND NOW THE PERSON IS NEEDING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE DISABILITY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST CATEGORY. THE PERSON ASKING FOR SOMETHING. WHAT WORDS DOES THE PERSON HAVE TO USE THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY I HEREBY REQUEST ACCOMMODATION. THEY DON'T HAVE TO SAY ADA OR REHABILITATION ACT. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE THE WORD DISABILITY AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO ARE EMPLOYEES IF YOU NEED ACCOMMODATION, YOU HAVE TO PUT THE SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER ON NOTICE YOU'RE NEEDING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF A CONDITION THAT'S A DISABILITY. YOU'LL SEE HOW SOME PIECES WE TALKED ABOUT, DISABILITY, QUALIFIED AND HOW THEY ALL COME TOGETHER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO PUT THE SUPERVISOR ON NOTICE. IT COULD BE THE MANAGER OR EDI, ON NOTICE, I'M NEEDING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SOME CONDITION THAT COULD BE A DISABILITY. WHEN I SAID I'M A RESEARCHER AND I TELL MY SUPERVISOR I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THE REPORTS DONE THAT YOU NEED DONE BECAUSE MY DEPRESSION, HAVE I PUT YOU ON NOTICE? YES. WHAT'S THE THING TO SAY TO ME AND THE RIGHT PLACE TO START? RIGHT PLACE TO START IS SAYING TO ME, HOW CAIN -- CAN I HELP YOU. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S TECHNICALLY REQUIRED BUT I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO START BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING QUICK AND SIMPLE AND EASY AND YOU CAN DO IT AND YOU CAN SOLVE THE WHOLE ISSUE. IF THERE IS A QUICK, SIMPLE EASY FIX WHAT WOULD DO I? I'D DOCUMENT THE SIX THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. IF THERE'S NOT A QUICK SIMPLE EASY FIX I'D REFER THE PERSON TO EDI TO GO THROUGH THESE STEPS. IS THERE AN IMPAIRMENT OR LIMITATION AND HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS. EDI THEN WORKING WITH THE SUPERVISOR AND DECISION MAKER TO DETERMINE THE SNRM FUNCTIONS OF THE -- ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB AND CAN THE PERSON DO THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND THEN WORK THE DECISION MAKER AND COMING UP WITH A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION. REMEMBER, THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO AS AN EMPLOYEE IS PUT THE EMPLOYER ON NOTICE. DON'T WAIT UNTIL THERE'S A MISCONDUCT OR PERFORMANCE PROBLEM. COURTS ARE SAYING COURTS DON'T HAVE TO RESCIND DISCIPLINE FOR YOU GET A BAD REVIEW. COURTS ARE SAYING, THE PROPER THING NOR EMPLOYER IS TO GIVE THAT CORRECT COUNSELLING, NOT TO RESCIND A BAD REVIEW. IT WILL BE UP TO THE EMPLOYEE TO LET THE SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER KNOW HE OR SHE IS NEEDING SOMETHING. NO MAGIC LANGUAGE BUT THERE'S BEEN CASES LIKE THERE WAS A CASE AGAINST NISSAN WHERE THE GUY SAID I HAVE KIDNEY DISEASE AND I NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO AN EASIER POSITION. THE COURT SAID THAT WAS ENOUGH. THAT WAS ENOUGH TO SPARK THE PROCESS. OR I'M HAVING SUCH BACK PAIN WHEN I'M FORCED TO DRIVE THIS PARTICULAR VAN. THE COURT SAID THAT WAS ENOUGH. THAT WAS ENOUGH TO START THE PROCESS. OR IN A COVID CONTEXT IF AN EMPLOYEE SAID I'M NOT COMFORTABLE COMING BACK TO WORK BECAUSE OF MY UNDERLYING CONDITION AND FEAR OF GETTING COVID IS THAT ENOUGH TO START THE PROCESS? YES. THIS IS WHERE THE EMPLOYER SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE PERSON AND TALKING TO TO THE PERSON AND MAYBE GETTING MORE INFORMATION AND WHERE EDI NEEDS MORE INFORMATION NOT AS AN OBVIOUS CONDITION BUT IF I SAY I HAVE UNDERLYING M.S., WOULD EDI BE ENTITLED TO GET THIS YES, OF COURSE BECAUSE THE COURTS SAY EMPLOYERS CAN GET THAT INFORMATION AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FROM AN EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHY EDI WOULD BE ASKING FOR THIS INFORMATION TO DETERMINE DISABILITY. NOT THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEE A HARD TIME BUT TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON'S COVERED UNDER THE LAW. ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS. COURTS ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER BOTH SIDES ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS. SO MIDDLE OF PAGE 9:00 -- PAGE PAGE 9, DID YOU ENGAGE OR COOPERATE IN THE PROCESS? COURTS ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER REACHED OUT TO THE EMPLOYEE, DID THEY TRY TO SET UP A MEETING OR ASK FOR MORE MEDICAL INFORMATION IF THEY NEEDED IT AND FROM THE EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE THEY'RE SAYING TO EMPLOYEES, DID YOU COOPERATE WITH THE EMPLOYER? THERE'S BEEN SO MANY CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEE FAILED TO COOPERATE. AN EEOC WHERE THE EMPLOYEE DROPPED THE BALL. MAYBE THE EEOC ASKED THE PERSON TO BRING IN DOCUMENTATION AND THE EMPLOYEE REFUSED. THERE WAS A CASE THIS SUMMER IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SAID I TOLD YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW WHEN I FIRST APPLIED FOR THE JOB AND THE EEOC SAID IT'S NOT IF YOU HAVE. IF THE EMPLOYER NEEDS IT NOW TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS ARE YOU HAVE TO COOPERATE. IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. THERE'S BEEN CASES WHERE THEY LOOKED AT ONE ACCOMMODATION AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE COURTS AND EEOC SAID IT DROPS THE BALL. ONE POSTAL SERVICE WORKER SAID I WANT TO WEAR CROCS AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT A WAREHOUSE ENVIRONMENT AND THAT'S NOT SAFE FOOT WEAR AND SHE SAID I WANT TO WEAR CROCS I WON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. EEOC SAID SHE DROPPED THE BALL. IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. BOTH PARTIES HAVE TO COOPERATE. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT SPARK THE PROCESS AND COMPONENTS. LET'S TALK ABOUT ACCOMMODATIONS AND THINGS COURTS SAID ARE REQUIRED AND AREN'T REQUIRED AND A WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT FOR EMPLOYEES TO UNDERSTAND AS SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED. ADDITIONAL UNPAID LEAVE BEYOND NIH POLICIES AND FMLA LEAVE. AND COURTS ARE SAYING ADDITIONAL UNPAID LEAVE IS A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION UNLESS IT CAUSES UNDUE HARDSHIP. WHILE THE PERSON IS OUT ON LEAVE WHAT EEOC AND COURTS ARE SAYING IS YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE JOB OPEN FOR HIM OR HER UNLESS IT'S AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. ONE THING COURTS ARE SAYING IS NOT REQUIRED IS THE PERSON HAS NO IDEA WHEN HE OR SHE WILL BE ABLE TO COME BACK. EEOC AND COURTS SAY INDEFINITE LEAVE IS NOT REQUIRED EITHER BECAUSE IT'S NOT REASONABLE OR BECAUSE IT CAUSES UNDUE HARDSHIP. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THE COVID-19 ERA. SAY MY JOB IS NOT ONE THAT CAN BE DONE AT HOME AND SAY I HAVE TO LEAVE BECAUSE OF MY UNDERLYING CONDITION, QUESTION, IS THAT A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME OR IS THAT INDEFINITE? I WISH -- I KNOW YOU WISH, WE ALL WISH WE KNEW WHEN THIS WAS GOING TO END AND WHEN IT WILL BE SAFE AGAIN. WE DON'T SO IT'S INDEFINITE AT THIS POINT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER IT'S A DEFINED OR INDEFINITE PERIOD OF LEAVE. FROM THE EMPLOYER'S PERSPECTIVE YOU HAVE DETERMINE IF IT CAN BE DONE AT HOME AND AS A LAST RESORT YOU'RE LOOKING AT REASSIGNMENT. LEAVE COMES UP OFTEN. JOB RESTRUCTURING, ANOTHER KIND OF ACCOMMODATION COMES UP VERY OFTEN WHEN THEY SAY I CAN DO MOST AND I JUST CAN'T DO PORTIONS AND GIVE THAT TO SOMEONE ELSE. SO WHAT DON'T YOU EVER HAVE TO GIVE AWAY? ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. WE NEVER HAVE TO LOWER PRODUCTIVITY STANDARDS AND WE HAVE TO ANALYZE WHAT'S AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT AWAY AS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THERE WAS A CASE FROM THIS YEAR WHERE THE EMPLOYEE COULDN'T ANSWER PHONE CALLS BECAUSE OF HIS ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES. THE COURT SAID ANSWERING PHONE CALLS FOR HIS JOB WASN'T AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. SOMETIMES AN EMPLOYER GOES BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BUT IF YOU'RE A SUPERVISOR AND WANT TO TEMPORARILY GIVE AWAY AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION YOU NEED TO WORK WITHE DI ON THIS. WITH EDI. NEED TO BALK WE ALL UNDERSTAND -- WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WE ALL UNDERSTAND X IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AND TEMPORARILY PER YOUR REQUEST WE WON'T MAKE YOU DO IT AND TEMPORARILY, HOW LONG YOU CAN DO THAT IS UP TO US. THAT'S WHAT I'D DOCUMENT. IF YOU'RE A SUPERVISOR AND NOT GOING TO MAKE SOMEBODY DO IT [NO AUDIO] IT COMES UP IN THE INTERIM PERIOD IT SHOULD DOCUMENT WE HAVE NOT MADE HIM DO AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AND BASED ON WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING, HERE'S WHAT HIS PERFORMANCE REFLECTS. CHANGING SOMEBODY'S DUTIES CAN BE A COMBINATION BUT NEVER GIVING AWAY AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. HOW ABOUT THIS, I NEED A NEW SUPERVISOR AS AN ACCOMMODATION. COURTS SAID YOU MAY HAVE TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITING BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE SOMEONE'S SUPERVISOR OR CO-WORKERS AS AN ACCOMMODATION. WHAT ABOUT RESCINDING DISCIPLINE IS THAT AN ACCOMMODATION. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER BASED ON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESCIND DISCIPLINE. IT'S UP TO THE EMPLOYEE TO LET THE SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER OR EDI KNOW AHEAD OF TIME FOR THE MISCONDUCT THAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE COMPLYING WITH THIS RULE BECAUSE OF MY CONDITION AND THEN ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS. LIKE I'M HAVING TROUBLE LIKE THE FEDEX CASE GETTING TO WORK ON TIME BECAUSE OF MY MEDS. TELL ME EMPLOYER AHEAD OF TIME NOT AFTER THE FACT BECAUSE EEOC CONSISTENTLY SAID IN CASES AGAINST OTHERS YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESCIND DISCIPLINE OR STAY YOUR DISCIPLINARY HAND. FROM AN EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE FOR THOSE WHO ARE EMPLOYEES, IT'S UP TO YOU. YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO LET THEM KNOW YOU'RE NEEDING SOMETHING. WORKING AT HOME AND THERE WAS AN NIH CASE THIS YEAR WHERE EEOC SAID WORK AT HOME COULD BE AN ACCOMMODATION. HERE'S THE THING COURTS AND EEOC ARE LOOKING AT. ONE, DO YOU HAVE A DISABILITY. NOT JUST DO YOU WANT TO WORK AT HOME BUT DO YOU HAVE A DISABILITY. TWO, WHAT'S THE JOB? IS THAT AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. IF IT'S NOT AND YOU HAVE A DISABILITY, THEN, YES, WORK AT HOME COULD BE AN ACCOMMODATION LIKE NIH HAD AN EMPLOYEE WITH A TERRIBLE ALLERGY REMOTELY COMING IN CONTACT WITH CARPET AREAS SO SHE COULDN'T BE ON SITE AND HER JOB WAS LOOKING AT TUMOR MEASUREMENTS ON A COMPUTER AND THAT'S A GOOD JOB AS SOMEONE ENTITLED TO WORK AT HOME AS AN ACCOMMODATION AND THERE'S CASES WHERE THE COURT AND EEOC SAID A JOB CAN'T BE DONE AT HOME. THINK OF THE CASE WHERE THE GUY SAID I WANT TO DO MY JOB AS A FEMA CRISIS MANAGEMENT GUY AT HOME, NO, BECAUSE TRAVELLING WAS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION. THAT'S WHY THOSE ISSUES COME IN AND CHANGING THE START AND STOP SIGNS. THE COURTS SAID MODIFIED SCHEDULE IS A REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. MAYBE I NEED ONE SO I'LL NOT AROUND A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING SPACES, IS THAT A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION? [NO AUDIO] IF THEY DO PROVIDE PARKING THEN EEOC SAID YOU MAY BE NIEMENTED TO RESERVED -- ENTITLED TO REFERRED ACCESSIBLE SPOT LIKE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. REASSIGNMENT IS THE ACCOMMODATION OF LAST RESORT WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS. IF I SAY I CAN'T BE IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE OF MY UNDERLYING CONDITION AND YOU LOOK AND ANALYZE AND SAY THE JOB CAN'T BE DONE AT HOME. AND LEAVE IS NOT A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION, THAT'S WHERE AS A LAST RESORT WE LOOK AT REASSIGNMENT. OVER THE YEARS EVERY COURT SAID REASSIGNMENT IS A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION. REASSIGNMENT TO WHAT? TO A VACANT EQUIVALENT JOB THE PERSON CAN DO. IF NOT VACANT LOWER LEVEL BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROMOTE. WE HAVE TO LOOK EQUIVALENT AND THEN LOWER LEVEL. LET ME TELL YOU SOME OF THE DIFFICULT REASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS. ONE IS HOW WIDELY DO WE HAVE TO LOOK. ONE SAYS LOOK AS WIDELY AS YOU ARE. IF YOU'RE NATIONWIDE, LOOK NATIONWIDE UNLESS THE PERSON HAS TOLD YOU I'M NOT WILLING TO RELOCATE AND THIS IS WHERE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND WHOEVER IS ENGAGING IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS TO DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE SO THERE'S NOT SOME MISUNDERSTANDING. WHAT IF I'M NOT THE BEST QUALIFIED. WHAT IF I DO NEED REASSIGNMENT AND I'M MINIMALLY QUALIFIED BUT THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE SO MUCH BETTER WHO GETS THE JOB? THE ANSWER IS I DO. THAT'S WHAT EEOC SAYS AND FRANKLY WHAT MOST COURTS SAY. THE PERSON WITH THE DISABILITY GETS THE JOB OVER SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE BETTER QUALIFIED. THERE'S A COURT CASE THAT SAYS UNLESS THE OTHER PERSON IS SO MUCH BETTER IT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP AND THAT SAY DEFENSE. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. WHEN I SAY UNDUE HARDSHIP WHAT DO WE THINK OF? I HAVE TO TELL YOU, EMPLOYERS ALMOST NEVER WIN ON THE ARGUMENT WHERE EMPLOYERS DO WIN ON UNDUE HARDSHIP IS SAYING GIVING THE ACCOMMODATION WOULD OVER BURDEN OTHER EMPLOYEES. A POLICE OFFICER SAID I NEED EIGHT HOUR SHIFTS INSTEAD OF 12 HOUR SHIFTS. THE COURT SAID, WAIT, IF WE GIVE YOU EIGHT-HOUR SHIFTS THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO WORK EXTRA LONG SHIFTS NOT JUST 12 HOURS BUT MORE THAN 12 HOURS. THAT'S AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. THERE WAS A CASE THIS YEAR AGAINST G.W. WHERE IT WAS A PLUMBER WHO WANTED LEAVE BUT THERE WERE ALREADY SO MANY PLUMBERS OUT ON LEAVE THE REMAINING PLUMBERS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK SO MUCH HARDER. THAT WAS A GOOD UNDUE HARDSHIP OR HAVE TO DO ALL THE LIFTING ALL THE TIME IS UNDUE. SO WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE. WE LOOKED AT A PERSON TRIGGERING THE PROCESS AND THEN THE SUPERVISOR ASKED HOW CAN I HELP YOU, IF THERE'S AN EASY FIX WE DOCUMENT THOSE. IF THERE'S NOT, EDI'S INVOLVED LOOKING AT IF THE PERSON HAS A DISABILITY. WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION. SO JESSICA, LET ME TURN IT BACK TO YOU. >> I'M SURE TECH WILL LET US KNOW IF WE'RE GETTING A HARD CUT OFF. A COUPLE QUESTIONS I WANT TO GET IN I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THE NIH PROCESS BUT IT'S REASONABLE TO ASK YOUR OPINION. IT'S A QUESTION OF IS THE EVER APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION? >> IT'S NOT ILLEGAL IF THE SUPERVISOR IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN HELPING MAKE THE DETERMINATION. IS IT APPROPRIATE. I'D SAY FROM A BEST PRACTICE PERSPECTIVE I'D WANT TO KEEP THEM OUT, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. WE'LL ALWAYS STEER THE SUPERVISOR CLEAR AS BEST PRACTICE AS DAVID DESCRIBED THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISHED DISABILITY WE DON'T WANT THEM ON THE PATH WHEN EDI IS HERE WITH THAT PROCESS. AND THIS IS RELATED TO COVID IN THAT WE'VE BEEN MOVING ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AROUND. IN SOME CASES THERE'S OFFICES WHERE MANAGEMENT IS COMING UP WITH WAYS THAT WORK CAN BE DONE REMOTELY OR EVEN COMING UP WITH ALTERNATIVE TO TYPICAL WORK THAT CAN BE DONE REMOTELY OPPOSED TO TYPICAL WORK WHICH IS ONLY ON SITE. HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THAT WHEN THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT KEEPING OUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS UP TO DATE AND PART OF THE QUESTION FOR MANAGEMENT MAY BE SAYING EMPLOYEE A I CAN MODIFY YOUR JOB THIS WAY BUT EMPLOYEE B I DON'T MODIFY YOUR JOB AND WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE. IT'S A PRETTY INVOLVED QUESTION WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. THAT'S A PRETTY INVOLVED QUESTION. THERE WERE A LOT OF ASPECTS TO THAT. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT WITH MAKING THESE MODIFICATIONS SO JOBS CAN BE DONE AT HOME. THE WAY I HEAR THAT QUESTION AND JESSICA, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSTATING IT, THERE REALLY ARE SOME ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS NOT BEING DONE AT HOME. NOTHING WRONG WITH MODIFYING THE JOB TEMPORARILY IN THAT SITUATION BUT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD DOCUMENT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THIS AND IN THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW I'D DOCUMENT THERE'S SOME ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS WE COULDN'T GET DONE THIS PERIOD BECAUSE THE PERSON WAS WORKING AT HOME AND WE'RE NOT TAKING THE PERSON DOWN, WE'RE JUST ACKNOWLEDGING SOME ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS WERE NOT DONE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THAT USED AGAINST ME IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS WHEN I'M TRYING TO ARGUE THAT NOW WE CAN BE IN THE WORKPLACE WE WANT YOU ON SITE. >> THE THING I'D ADD FOR NIH VIEWERS IS WE'RE DISTINGUISHING IN TERMS OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS SOME INDIVIDUALS WORKING FROM HOME TELEWORK ITSELF IS BECAUSE OF COVID. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE DOING BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE WORLD AT THE MODEL MOMENT. SOME EMPLOYEES WILL NEED ACCOMMODATIONS EVEN JUST TO DO CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS TYPICALLY OPPOSED TO THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT WAS ALL THE QUESTIONS I RESOURCED. IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL TO HAVE YOU WITH US. ANY CLOSING THOUGHTS YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE? >> REMEMBER, NONE OF THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE IT REQUIRES SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS AND INVOLVED EMPLOYEES TO SIT BACK, GO THROUGH THE STEPS [NO AUDIO] THERE'S FIVE WORDS THEY THINK ARE USEFUL IN EVERY DAY LIFE, HOW CAN I HELP YOU. JESSICA, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THANK YOU TO ALL YOUR LISTENERS FOR LISTENING TO ME. >> IT'S A PLEASURE. THANKS FOR JOINING US AND WE HOPE THIS WAS INFORMATIVE. VISIT THE EDI WEBSITE AT EDI.NIH.gov FOR MORE INFORMATION FROM THIS EVENT INCLUDING THE RESOURCES DAVID MENTIONED AND FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO CONTACT MYSELF AND OUR TEAM ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION OR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, EDI COVERS THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PORTFOLIO SERVICES FOR THE NIH AND CERTAIN WE CAN GET AN ANSWER OR POINT YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE THE SESSION. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR DAY WHEREVER YOU ARE.