Mcalindin also appeals the district courts grant of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: response to the charges addressed at the pre-disciplinary hearing. This four-page rebuttal generally explains why Zihala's work performance was inadequate and acknowledges "that she experienced some unusual difficulty but believes that given another opportunity she would experience minimum problems in the future." The rebuttal also states that Zihala "realizes that her behavior was not acceptable to management and agrees to do whatever she is assigned to do by management." The rebuttal requests that the Department "at least give her considerably more than the one week of evaluation she has received [*23] and even the full extent of her probationary period for observation. . . . Ms. Zihala and the union request that you would uphold that commitment long enough to effectively evaluate her." After a careful review of this rebuttal, we do not believe that it constitutes a request for a reasonable accommodation. The rebuttal gives no indication that Zihala was mentally incapable of performing her job or that she needed an accommodation. In fact, the rebuttal asserts just the opposite by claiming that Zihala has come to grips with the problems she was causing at the Department and is committed to correcting "any offensive or unacceptable behavior and concentrate on being the type of employee" the Department needs. Although the rebuttal notes that Zihala was suffering some type of illness during her first week with the Department, the rebuttal states that Zihala's condition has "improved considerably" and she "retains the ability to perform exceptionally as an employee." Thus, the clear message of the rebuttal is that Zihala can adequately perform her job in the future but that she needs another chance to prove it. But a second chance is not the same as a reasonable accommodation under the [*24] ADA. Siefken v. Village of Arlington Heights, 65 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, Zihala contends that, even if her wr...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online