Skip navigation

Disability

See also CSR 5-84 

A prima facie case of discrimination is proven by evidence of 1) membership in a protected class, 2) a materially adverse employment action, and 3) evidence which supports an inference of discriminatory intent. In re Tenenbaum, CSA 57-16 (Order 7/26/17), citing In re Lombard-Hunt, CSA 75-07, 7 (3/3/08), citing In re Ortega, CSA 81-06, 14 (4/11/07); In re Mallard, CSA 129-05, 3 (2/23/06).

Mere inconvenience or alteration of job conditions are adverse employment actions in the context of a discrimination claim. In re Tenenbaum, CSA 57-16 (Order 7/26/17).

A change in work hours is discriminatory only if employee shows she is disabled, and that an accommodation in her schedule is necessary for her to perform the essential duties of her position. In re Tenenbaum, CSA 57-16 (Order 7/26/17).

No violation established where claim was based on non-witness statement that appellant said “fxxk this stupid bxtch, it’s not my fault she has a fxxking disability. I ain’t the one here begging for free services and assistance. I have a job,” but appellant denied making the statement, alleged victim did not testify, her statement was not sworn, it remained unknown how disinterested she was, and there was no corroboration for her statement. In re Garcia, CSA 35-17, 3-4 (10/4/17), citing Industrial Claims Appeals Office v. Slower Stop Marketing Corp., 782 P.2d 13, 18 (Colo. 1989).


Allegation that appellant incurred work-related injuries did not support disability discrimination claim since it did not relate her disability to an adverse agency action. In re Frazier, CSA 24-08, 2 (4/30/08). 

Time off to participate in a treatment program is a reasonable accommodation for an employee disabled by alcoholism under the ADA. In re Cullen, CSB 165-04, 6 (1/18/07), citing Renaud v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 203 F.3d 723, 729-731 (10th Cir. 2000).

Alcoholism is recognized as an impairment under the ADA. In re Cullen, CSB 165-04, 4 (1/18/07), citing Bragdon v Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 632-633 (1998); Poindexter v Atchison, 168 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 1999); ADA, H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 (II) at 51 (1990).

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability with regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06), citing 42 USC 12112(a). 

The ADA defines disability as any of the following: 1) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual; 2) a record of such impairment; or 3) being regarded [by the employer] as having such impairment. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06); 29 CFR 1630.2(g).

Major life activities include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, or working. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06); 29 CFR 1630.2.

Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of disability as defined by the ADA when he did not establish how insomnia or breathing difficulties affected a major life activity, did not offer any documentation of a record of impairment, or establish how the agency regards her as disabled. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06).

Appellant’s failure to establish disability under the ADA renders moot a disparate treatment discrimination claim based upon disability under CSR 5-84 A. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06).

Appellant’s requested accommodation, “talking to an employee about an issue,” is not a reasonable accommodation encompassed by the ADA. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06).

Appellant’s request to have her supervisor talk to her when issues arise is not a request for a reasonable accommodation for insomnia and breathing difficulties. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06).

To establish that she is disabled, appellant must show how her impairments affect a major life activity such as caring for herself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, or working. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 7 (3/3/06); 29 CFR 1630.2.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities because of their disabilities. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 2 (2/21/06), citing In re Aguirre, CSA 03-04, 6 (8/16/04); 42 USC 12101.

To maintain a claim for disability discrimination, a terminated employee must demonstrate that 1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, 2) he is able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and 3) the employer terminated him because of his disability. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 2 (2/21/06).

Request for ninety days of leave without pay was not a reasonable accommodation when appellant-analyst’s work was already backlogged, causing significant strain on other analysts and the agency was obligated to process analysts' work timely. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 3 (2/21/06).

Disabled appellant who was unable to return to work in any capacity for an indefinite period, was not able to perform the essential functions of his position, and was therefore not a qualified person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 3 (2/21/06).

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities because of their disabilities. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 2 (2/21/06), citing In re Aguirre, CSA 03-04, 6 (8/16/04); 42 USC 12101. 

To maintain a claim for disability discrimination, a terminated employee must demonstrate that 1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, 2) he is able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and 3) the employer terminated him because of his disability. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 2 (2/21/06). 

Agency did not discriminate against disabled employee based on his disability by disqualifying him, since employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodations. In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 5 (2/21/06).

Terminated appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, when his claim was supported only by evidence that his doctor imposed a thirty-pound lifting restriction after termination. In re Mestas, CSA 37-05, 8 (8/4/05).

Allegation that supervisor made his life a living hell while he was on worker’s compensation does not establish nexus with specific agency actions alleged to be discriminatory. In re Yardeny, CSA 26-05 (6/2/05). 

A person is substantially limited in a major life activity if she is unable to perform or is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which she can perform a particular major life activity, as compared to the average person's ability to perform that activity. In re Solano, CSA 107-04, 5 (4/29/05), citing EEOC Compliance Manual § 902.4(a)(1).

To be substantially limited in performing manual tasks, an individual must have a permanent or long-term impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from engaging in activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives. In re Solano, CSA 107-04, 5 (4/29/05).

The determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity is based upon the effect of that impairment on the life of the individual, and as such must be made on a case-by-case basis. In re Solano, CSA 107-04, 5 (4/29/05), citing Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).

Disability is a physical impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities. In re Owens, CSA 139-04, 5 (3/31/05), citing 29 CFR 1614.203(a) (1); Poindexter v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 168 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 1999).

The essential duties of a position are those used by the CSA to allocate each job to a classification and pay plan under 7-12. In re Romberger, CSA 89-04, 6 (3/2/05).  

 
Contact Us

Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA)
720-913-5604
OHRFMLAandADA@denvergov.org

OHR Employee Relations Unit
720-913-5710
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202
ERSTeam@denvergov.org

Workplace Mediation 
720-913-5719