Background
Annette Kingsolver, an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, suffered from clinical depression and cardiac arrhythmia. After her promotion from a GS-7 to a GS-9 position, she experienced increased stress associated with her duties and use of the Financial Resource System. She repeatedly sought leave without pay, a lateral transfer to a comparable position, or other help. Her supervisors offered flexible use of approximately 240 hours of accrued paid leave, a windowed office, and, because no comparable position for which she was qualified was available, a transfer to a GS-7 position.
Kingsolver ultimately requested and received the GS-7 transfer, which eliminated her work with the Financial Resource System and improved her symptoms. She later alleged that the ATF had failed to accommodate her and had coerced her into accepting a demotion. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and Kingsolver appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Assuming without deciding that Kingsolver was disabled and qualified under the Rehabilitation Act, the court held that the ATF had no duty to provide her requested alternatives. Her request for undefined “help” was insufficiently specific, and a lateral transfer was not reasonable because the record identified no vacant, comparable GS-9 position for which she was qualified; providing one would have required the agency to create a position.
The court also held that offering flexible use of Kingsolver’s accrued paid leave reasonably addressed her request for time away from work. Kingsolver did not show that the available 240 hours were insufficient, and her preference to preserve paid leave did not require the agency to provide unpaid leave instead. Finally, no reasonable jury could find coercion: Kingsolver knew that no comparable GS-9 position was available, had paid leave as an alternative, received time to consider the GS-7 position, requested the transfer, and experienced improved symptoms afterward.
Key Takeaways
- An employer’s accommodation duty is triggered by a specific request; a general request for “help” is insufficient.
- Reassignment does not require an employer to create a new position or displace another employee when no suitable vacancy exists.
- An employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the employee’s preferred accommodation, and paid leave may reasonably satisfy a request for leave.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Rehabilitation Act plaintiffs bear the burden of identifying a specific, reasonable accommodation. Employers need not create vacancies or replace an effective existing benefit with the employee’s preferred alternative when the distinction does not affect the accommodation’s usefulness.
It also shows that difficult personal circumstances or limited workplace options do not alone establish coercion. Courts will examine the available alternatives, the employee’s understanding of the choice, the time allowed for consideration, and the surrounding undisputed facts.