The Foreign Service Journal, December 2010

T his year marks the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In some ways, the State Depart- ment has made significant strides to increase career options for disabled employees. But there is still more to do. The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accom- modations for qualifying employees to enable them to per- form the essential functions of their jobs. Such accommo- dations might include providing specialized equipment, mod- ifying facilities, adjusting work schedules or job duties, and supplying readers or sign-language translators, or it might involve modifying examinations, training materials or poli- cies. A whole range of solutions can enable qualifying indi- viduals with a disability to perform their assigned duties. State’s Disability and Reasonable Accommodations Division, created inOctober 2009, assists employees with these and other accommodations, and liaises with other offices in the department to provide travel assistance, expedited ship- ping of required equipment and similar services. Under the guidance of Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy and Director General Nancy Powell, a Disability Leadership Committee makes and reviews policy. Representa- tives from the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of Medical Services have also met with an employee affilia- tion group, the Disability Action Group, to hear their con- cerns. It all looks very good on paper and, in truth, it represents a significant continuing effort and improvement over earli- er times. The reality, however, is not as bright. Some of the difficulties are practical: equipment delays; miscommunica- tion; questions over funding and ownership of equipment. We have seen employees unable to transfer equipment from one job to another because the bureau that bought it didn’t want to let it go, and items returned to Washington because they were shipped unclassified from one post to another and were then no longer allowable in a controlled access area. Some problems relate to communication. In order to qual- ify for reasonable accommodations, employees must formally identify themselves as disabled and apply. Some individu- als do not do so, perhaps because they incorrectly believe that it is enough for MED or a career development officer to be in the loop. In a number of recent cases, the department has sought to justify disputed actions based on an employee’s alleged failure to follow proper channels. But a major set of issues is unique to the Foreign Service, and they are the ones we should highlight for our members. The ADA was written with a spe- cific scenario in mind: An employee has a job that does not change, in a place that does not change, with a specific set of duties that do not change, and may need an accommo- dation to perform those duties. This scenario is typical in much of private industry, as well as for jobs in the Civil Service. In the Foreign Service, however, duties and job locations change often. Equally important, an up-or-out personnel sys- tem requires employees not only to perform their duties, but to do so competitively enough to be promoted before being selected out for “non-competitive” performance or time-in- class. Disabled FS members should be afforded the oppor- tunity to advance, on a level playing field, to more senior lev- els. This implies a fair chance to serve in “promotable” assign- ments, and to be promoted by boards that give special con- sideration to hardship service. While AFSA was successful in inserting wording into the precepts reducing the perceived disadvantages of too many domestic assignments, we still hear toomany stories of rescind- ed handshakes and enthusiasmwaning once the post or office learns of a candidate’s disability. Apart from the employee’s talent or experience, there is neither an incentive to accept a disabled candidate nor a disincentive for refusing one. The opacity of the assignment system makes it easy to couch a refusal in terms that do not appear to violate any law. Complicating this is a lack of information and inadequate training regarding employee rights and responsibilities, as well as the roles of MED and HR in these processes. For those disabled employees who do not have Class 1 clearances, com- munications betweenMED, the Office of Career Development and Assignments, posts and employees can muddle distinc- tions between an employee with a disability and one who sim- ply has a Class 2 or 5 clearance. Although MED is current- ly adding a position to work out such issues withHR, employ- ees often assume there is greater coordination than actually exists. In addition, regulations intended to protect employ- ees’ privacy can hinder understanding of their abilities and limitations—and hide from a promotion board the true rea- son for an employee’s reluctance to serve under certain con- ditions. AFSA recognizes that the issues are complex, but we urge the department to devote greater attention to complying not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ❏ Valuing Abilities, Despite Disabilities V.P. VOICE: STATE ■ BY DANIEL HIRSCH DE C EMB E R 2 0 1 0 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 53 A F S A N E W S