The Career Service Rules require the disqualification of an employee who becomes unable to perform satisfactorily the essential functions of his position due to a legal impairment. In re Lucero, CSA 59-09 (12/15/09), citing CSR 14-30.
The agency has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a disqualification complied with the Career Service Rules governing disqualifications. In re Crescente, CSA 82-06, 6 (2/2/07), citing In re Cullen, CSB 165-04 (1/18/07); CRS 13-25-127(1) (2006).
A prima facie case for disqualification was established were agency showed that maintaining a valid driver’s license was an essential function of appellant’s position, and appellant acknowledged his license was revoked. In re Lucero, CSA 59-09, 3 (12/15/09).
Appellant’s contention, that others whose licenses were revoked were allowed to keep their jobs, was not established where such employee did not testify, agency supervisors did not recall such an occurrence, supervisors testified no one in that division has been granted such exception, and no other evidence corroborated appellant’s assertion. In re Lucero, CSA 59-09, 3 (12/15/09).
Appellant’s claim, that DMV permitted installation of an interlock ignition device that would enable Appellant to keep his job, was not established where: no supervisor recalled Appellant mentioning an interlock device at his pre-disciplinary meeting; agency maintains zero-tolerance policy against loss of driver’s license; appellant failed to produce proof of restricted license at his pre-disciplinary meeting, and at hearing over four months later still produced no such DMV authorization, lending doubt as to its existence. In re Lucero, CSA 59-09, 3 (12/15/09).
Appellant’s claims, that agency could reassign him to non-driving position after his license was revoked or assign him a chauffeur, were properly denied by agency where: appellant’s position required him to drive in order to supervise his crew; appellant’s division was already understaffed so there was no one available to drive him; and agency was not obligated to accommodate such request for reassignment or for chauffeur. In re Lucero, CSA 59-09, 4 (12/15/09).