Guice-Mills v. Derwinski, GUICE-MILL

Citation967 F.2d 794
Decision Date24 June 1992
Docket NumberNo. 1310,P,D,GUICE-MILL,1310
Parties59 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 246, 116 A.L.R.Fed. 797, 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,589, 61 USLW 2047, 2 A.D. Cases 187, 3 NDLR P 29 Constancelaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 91-6301.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

J. Owen Zurhellen, III, Zurhellen & La Rue, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Victor Omari Olds, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Thomas A. Zaccaro, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before FEINBERG, WINTER and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Constance Guice-Mills appeals from an adverse decision after a three-day bench trial before Judge Bernard Newman. * He held that she had not been the subject of handicap discrimination by the Veterans Administration Hospital at Montrose, New York. We agree with Judge Newman that Guice-Mills' medical condition rendered her not "otherwise qualified" to satisfy the justified requirements for a head nurse position. Moreover, the hospital's offer to reassign her to the position of staff nurse for a shift compatible with her medical condition and at no decrease in grade, salary or benefits constituted a "reasonable accommodation" within the meaning of regulations promulgated pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

Guice-Mills began work at the Veterans Administration Franklin Delano Roosevelt Hospital, Montrose, New York, in February 1980. Approximately one month later, she assumed the position of head nurse, which she held until her retirement on a disability pension in April 1986. There was testimony at trial, credited by Judge Newman, that head nurses need to work an "administrative tour of duty" of either a 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. shift or 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. shift. Head nurses are the only management--nonunion--employees in patient-care units. They must participate in major administrative activities concerning their unit, including meetings near the beginning of their shift. They must also review and modify the care and treatment of patients often after consultation with the night supervisor. Accordingly, the hospital's standard requirement is that a head nurse be During her term as head nurse, Guice-Mills suffered from a number of maladies, among them depression, severe anxiety, insomnia and migraine headaches. She attributed these to job-related stress. In 1984, she had a major depressive episode. At that time, her physician recommended a two-month leave of absence from her job. As part of her treatment, Guice-Mills also commenced antidepressant drug therapy and, upon the recommendation of a psychiatrist, began to take sedatives. After the leave of absence, appellant returned to her job, but her depression recurred.

                present and fulfill the prescribed tasks during the designated administrative shift.   It was also established that head nurses have worked different shifts from those above or covered more than one unit in the absence of a head nurse.   However, as a matter of ordinary practice, head nurses were expected to comply with the designated schedules
                

Upon her physician's recommendation, Guice-Mills took an extended leave of absence from February until September 1985. Returning, she again experienced depression-related symptoms, among them insomnia, extreme fatigue, lassitude, physical deterioration, significant weight gain, difficulty in concentrating, loss of interest in ordinary activities, sleeping disturbances, inability to get out of bed in the morning, and other symptoms. At that time she came under the care of a Dr. Barnes. Among other medications, Dr. Barnes prescribed Desyrel, a sedating antidepressant intended to relieve stress and induce sleep.

After beginning to take Desyrel, Guice-Mills found it nearly impossible to get out of bed in the morning and usually arrived for her 8:00 a.m. shift after 10:00 a.m. Her supervisors repeatedly instructed her to arrive by 8:00 a.m., but she regularly failed to do so.

On or about September 19, 1985, Guice-Mills asked that she be allowed to work a later block of hours, specifically 10:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. At that time she submitted a letter from Dr. Barnes stating that she was under care for extreme stress and needed to work a later shift, beginning at or after 10:00 a.m. The letter did not mention appellant's depressive illness, her treatment or medication program, or her prognosis. Nor did it explain the significance of the 10:00 a.m. starting time.

On September 23, Dr. Richard Donn, Chief of Staff of the hospital, wrote to Dr. Barnes seeking information concerning appellant's illness, treatment plan and prognosis. Guice-Mills refused to allow Dr. Barnes to release any information. On September 24, appellant's request for a changed tour of duty was denied, and she was directed to work the 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. tour of duty. On October 8, 1985, appellant submitted an application to the hospital for disability retirement. This application was approved in April 1986.

On October 22, 1985, while her application for retirement was still pending, appellant filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming that she had been denied the requested change because she was black and handicapped. Appellant continued to arrive late, often coming in after 11:00 a.m. On January 2, 1986, before any EEOC investigation and prior to the expiration of Title VII's 180-day waiting period for commencing a lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), appellant filed a pro se action charging race- and handicap-based discrimination.

On January 8, 1986, Dr. Barnes wrote a second letter seeking to have appellant's work hours changed. In that letter, Dr. Barnes referred to appellant's need for a later starting time because of her medication schedule. Replying to that letter, Dr. Donn indicated that a particular medication schedule alone was insufficient to justify a change and professed his willingness to keep an open mind and to explore alternatives. There was no response, and on January 14, 1986, Dr. Donn reiterated his prior conclusion that, based on what he knew of the situation, he could not justify a change in appellant's tour of duty. Meanwhile, Rosell Knight, R.N., the hospital's Chief of Nursing Service, indicated a willingness to reassign appellant to the position of staff nurse in order to meet Guice- Appellant's application for disability retirement was approved in April 1986, and she terminated her employment with the hospital on April 25, 1986. The EEOC made no final determination on her complaint. The EEOC file was turned over to the Veterans Administration Office of General Counsel for final agency determination. On October 30, 1987, the Office of General Counsel of the Veterans Administration published a final decision rejecting the substance of appellant's EEOC complaint.

                Mills' expressed need to work a 10:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. tour of duty.   The position of staff nurse was consistent with appellant's professional training and experience, met her request for a permanent 10:00 a.m. starting time, and, so far as appears on this record (Guice-Mills having the burden of proof), maintained her compensation level.   Appellant rejected the offered staff-nurse position, stating that the change would constitute a demotion and that she was not qualified for the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Richardson v. Mabus
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • August 24, 2016
    ...It points out that Mr. Richardson's failure-to-accommodate claim must fail "as a matter of law," id. at 8 (quoting Guice–Mills v. Derwinski , 967 F.2d 794, 798 (2d Cir.1992) ), as he was "promot[ed] to a Shipyard job at a higher grade, with a higher hourly wage and the same benefits, and ba......
  • Liddy v. Cisneros
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 25, 1993
    ...position solely because of her handicap; and (4) the program sponsoring the position received federal funding." Guice-Mills v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 794, 797 (2d Cir.1992) (citation The application of HUD's rule with regard to Ms. Liddy may not rest solely on a discriminatory motive and may h......
  • Nweke v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 29, 1998
    ...ability to get to work on time and perform effectively. Johnson, 1997 WL 580708, at *7 (citing, inter alia, Guice-Mills v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 794 (2d Cir.1992)). The facts above, especially the medical evidence, also support the proposition that Nweke did not have a record of an impairment......
  • Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 99-CV-0213.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • November 26, 2002
    ...constitutes an impairment," Horwitz v. L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., 122 F.Supp.2d 350, 353 (N.D.N.Y. 2000); see also Guice-Mills v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 794, 797 (2d Cir.1992) (depression is "impairment" under Rehabilitation Act), but where a plaintiff, like the one here, indicates that the dis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Rehabilitation Act and Federal Employment
    • United States
    • Review of Public Personnel Administration No. 19-4, October 1999
    • October 1, 1999
    ...(M D Ala.) Guice-Mills v Derwinski, 1991 772 F Supp 188 (S.D N.Y), Sidor v Reno, 1997 1997 U S Dist LEXIS 14260 (S.D N Y) affirmed, 1992 967 F2d 794 Simonetti v Runyon, 1999 1999 U S. Dist LEXIS 956 Hansen v Runyon, 1999 1999 U S. Dist LEXIS 7242 (DNJ) (N D Ill ) Southeastern Community Coll......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT