Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Dirce McGee filed an employment discrimination lawsuit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Air Force, following a district court’s decision against her. McGee, who was employed as an Aircraft Mechanic Helper, was terminated due to her inability to work in aircraft fuel cells, a key job requirement, due to sensitivity to fuel and fumes. McGee contended that she was a qualified handicapped person under the Act, and the district court erred in its judgment. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling, agreeing that McGee did not meet the criteria for being considered handicapped or otherwise qualified for the position under the Act. The court emphasized that the Rehabilitation Act does not ensure individuals can secure a job that they cannot perform due to essential job requirements, nor does it require consideration of reasonable accommodation if no discrimination is established. The appellate court also dismissed additional claims related to fuel fume exposure due to their absence at the trial court stage. Consequently, the district court's judgment was upheld, and McGee's claims were rejected.
Legal Issues Addressed
Citing Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Unpublished opinions may be cited for their persuasive value on a material issue if copies are provided to the Court and all parties.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions can now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached or furnished to the Court and all parties.
Essential Job Functions and Handicap Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's inability to perform essential job functions due to sensitivity to fuel and fumes justified her termination, as accommodation was not required.
Reasoning: The court noted that the essential functions of her job required significant time in the fuel cells, which she could not fulfill, and that there was no evidence of available positions outside of this requirement.
Procedural Issues - Raising Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims not presented at the trial court level, such as exposure-related difficulties, are dismissed at the appellate level.
Reasoning: Additionally, McGee's claims regarding potential difficulties from exposure to fuel fumes are dismissed as they were not presented at the trial court.
Rehabilitation Act - Job Selection and Reasonable Accommodationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Act does not entitle individuals to their specific job choice if they cannot meet the essential requirements, and reasonable accommodation needs not be considered if no discrimination is proven.
Reasoning: The district court ruled that the Act does not guarantee individuals the specific job of their choosing. Exclusion from a position due to a disability that hinders performance or the ability to meet job requirements does not constitute handicap discrimination.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Qualified Handicapped Personsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's determination that the plaintiff was not a qualified handicapped person under the Rehabilitation Act.
Reasoning: McGee argued that the court erred in its determination that she was not a qualified handicapped person under the Act. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.