+Ct}vIC~iV~'V~A~.Z'~ F' NI~S~+IUS~'T`TCUlS~Mi~~('3 ~;AINT I}TS~CIE~IlVIIN~:Tit~

MASSA~H~.TT~~'I"`~'~ CC}1~IIvIISSI(31'r111CiAINS"T DT~Cl2IMTI~ATICl~3 ~ANTHONY ~,USTElZ3

Cc~mpla.inant

v.

TvIAS~A~~~C.JSET`I`~ DEF~I~.T~,tt:~NTC3F CU~GT~tJ1`3,

Respondent

~}{~CK.ET I~FQ, (~~-~`E:M-0149

DECI ~t71'~' C7►~' TIDE FULL +~tlN.tiVIISSit)Ai

This mater caznes before us fallowing a ~le~i~zcs~.by ~fie~rirtg t~f~c~r ~3ett~ E. W~xmaii,

Esq. 'in Cavor i~f ~t~ plai~ant Ar~tl~ar~y I,u~ter: ~r`~,L~ster'°} Af~~r ~n evidentiary hear n , t~~

Hearing Of"cer cc~~clt~d~d that the R~spa~d~nt, Massaul~uset~s ~iepartrn~n~ ~f C.orr~c~io~

( °̀I.~OC?' ~~ fiKl~epartnlent°') w~.s l~a~le fc~~ handicap ci scrim natit~ri in violatzon €~f IvI.~~~;,. ~. 15I~3,

~(16~ fir failing t~ acearia :iodate Ant~icrri~ L~rst~r's dzsabzlity, ~ ~hr~ni~ f~i~t c~e►ndition re~ultzn~

dram d a~r~tes opt a rrri~re perirnar enf bads and without enga~ n~ hip fully z~ an ii~teraeti~ve

dialogue xe~;ardix~g ~a~tent~aI accoxmmod~t ons. ~ The Hearing Offf~cer awarded Cc~r~~Iainant

$4t},~f?O:Qa in er~ational distress dania e~, R:es~ondent' his ~ppeaZecl thc~ decision to the ~" ~l.~

Ci~rrissic~z~.

? The .F~earin~ C7ff car rejected L~.ster's clai~aa that tie I3~C's mc~n tarzn~ and medicaldc~cument~tian d~masids constit~.xted har~.~si~e~~ based on handicap status in v vlatio~~ at C.r.L. ~.

l

STAI~IUA 3 Off' ~.E~IEW

'T'he xespc~nsblities of'the FuTI ~o~nmssro~~ are outlined by statute, -the

~c~mmiss en's I~ul~s ofPrt~cedure (804 ~1VIR-1.00 et, seq.) and xelevant case law. It is tih~ duty

of tine dull Commis an ~a review- the record t~fproceedin~s be~are tl~e Hear n~ officer. ~t!~[.~x,L.

~. l~1`~, Tt~ H~arir~g f;~~cer's ~nclin,~s c~f'~'act must'b~ supported by su`bstanfiai ev ci~n~e,

which is defined as "..,such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate tt~ su~pc~r~ a

~incling...:'° ~:atzv. MCt1D, ~651VIass. 357, 3~iS (1914): See:Gr.~,. c. 3{?A.

It ~ the Hearn C?~~ic~r's z°~sparzsit~ pity to evaluate the credibility cif w ~aiesses and Cci

~,ve h the evir~en~e wh~z~ d~cidin~ disputed issues of fit. The ~ ull Carnni s~ian deers ~ci these

cie~ rmin~~ ors of the ~Te~.ring Officer. fee ., ~cha~~ Corrsm tree of Ghico~c~~ v. ~ICA.U; -361

,Masi. 3:52 (1972j; Bowen v Col~aa~n~de Hotel, !~ MDLR 1t107~ 1.x;1; ~ (198 j, Thy Full

Comrrixss~ion's role is to d~terinine in.~~r al~~; wh th~r the deeisis~n ~nd~r appeal ~v~s ~enclered ort

u~~lawf~:~I ~irciced'~xe, based can an error a~' law; unsupported by ~ubstantiai evidence, nr whet~~x it

'vas arbitxary or capric ou~~ an a~ii~is~ of d ~cre~on; ar other se nit in a~cordanGe vr'~~h the law.

fee 8t}4 CM~.1.23.

~A:1S ~F ~`kI~ A~PE~S..,

'I'~~ D~?C lies appealed the decisicsn o~~ the grtrut~ds that tie ~~ar ng (7fficer's ~Zndi;~gs

were not sup~aort~d b~' subs~arz~tial evidence and tl~~t the erred as a utter off' law by ~nclizig the.

DC7G liable fear h~.rzd cap discrim n~:~ian f+?r failing tc~ en~;a~~ iz1 the nter~ctiv~ process with its

:pinyee; Anthony Laster, to d~ternrma~e whi r a r~asc~nable a~~c~mm~rdat ~n was ~va~lable for

his disatsility, "I'he DQC :argues that the ev derrc~ supports a ~ndi~ag that Lusher ~a~ na it~nger

cap~~I~ of pe~rforran~,lg the essential functions cif' the j ob c~ C a correction officer and therefore at

15182

cvas just ~iect z~ denying psis request fir a re enable ~ccaznrrmod~tic~n. I?{~C argues fhaf the

I-f~aring C7~f~icer's ccinclizsi~ri t.~at it failed, fio aetz~r~~y engage Duster iii art nte~~ctiv~ pr~~ess to

d~terrnin the possibility of a r~a~onab~~ a.~~~~cidatioii "vas based upon errors of Taw and

uz~s~p arted by ~ubst~ntial evidence. Tlie T.~OC al~~a argues that the Hearing C?f~c~r's ~~vard of

$~O;Jt~t}:00 in et c~~ic~iial distress dar~a~es was nc~t s~~~pc~rfed by si~bstanti~l evidence and is

exces~iv~. Fc~r t ie reasons set farC~. below; w~ reverie the decisian cif the Hearing C~ffic~r.

Antli~ny Luster was a Corrections Of~i~~r 1 with the 17tJC frt~m September 1991 until

September 2(~n'7* d vvorke~ at MCI-Shirley, a medium securiti~ cc rrecti~zial instit~~e.z TY~~

~°I .ring Offi"cer found that the '`prin mark duty" c~f°a Corre~t~on Ofd car T pis t can is tY~~ °`carp. and.

custody v# i ~nat~~" sentenced ta~ the ~Q~irrzt~n~ealtY~'s ct~rr~cf anal system: Ac~or~iz~g tc~

evicfsnc~ ~ar~sente~ by the ~t?~ there ~~~ seven essenti~I functions csftliis position; "(1)

esc4z~fin inmates, patrollzn~ facilities; n~aki~g ~aead county ~d security chealcs gu~crdan~, ~~~

d rectfn innnates ci~uirig work assignn-~ent~; (~,~ prevent n~ 'violence, escapes end suie c3es; (3)

s~arc~iin fQr cai~traban~.; (4) refer in,~ ~rtmatcs #o suppar~ive: servi~~s; (~}making reports; (6}

xespontlin~, to ~mer~,cnc es witih ~irearnzs, rest~~ nits, aid first yid ans~ {7~ scrcenin~ visitors,

aperatziig ~c~~.l pment anct serving friod,"

Be~inriing in X40.3, Luster, an t~:sulin-~epend.cint diabetic, started #c~ ~~p~rience ~ax~ in his

feet and arsicles attribufied by tias medicat care ~+x~aviders to diab~Cc n~c~ropat~xy, ~n~lazn~d tae

joints; astec~arrhritis c~fthe feet, fallen arehes;-calluses, bun vr~ and ~~ammertoes ~ :E~e ~.~ plied for

Z Con January 3fl, 20 8, Luster was approved fir di~abil t~ r tire~nent ~y the State Bawd off"F~:~txem~i~t.

~ T~i~re ~~as c~nflic~ n~ rne~icai e~ ~ience about whether the harninerta~s and flattened .archeswere hereditary Qr a~ a result. ~~ tihe regctir~ment that Luster wear military-stile boots at wax•1€

3

arad was ailawed to particip~~~ in the I~C7C's T'em~~rary Mode ed '~T~x~ ~rc~gram (`:TM~NP") on

th~e~ separate occasions k~aseci on medical irafarrtaatic~r~ provided: by his physicians over the next.

~~w years, even t~aou„~h he was usable to perfarrn the "pr inaxy duty” of hip jab,. whicYi he

aciznitted during lzis testirn.~ny~ was t ie card and custody of nr~~tes. ̀~ Instead, on each occ~~~on

Luster way Limited to "in~identa~'" ~ ar nn inmate ~c~nta~t. fee exhibit 5, Teir~~c~r ry Modified

Vc~~rk 1?r~giam ~'olcjr, "T~~e ̀ I"~~Vv'T' ~rogr~m, ~c~~rin~ster~c~ by DCtC's ~or:er'~ ~ornens~fion.

L~ vzs a~~, provides lie ~r.~tz~ierit emplay~s the o~pc~rtunity to return tt~ r~rc~rk after a ~or~€~relatec~

injury in ~ituatians e`~her~ a limited e~ rzod cif adafied duty is rega reci ~crr medical reasc~t~:s" ar c!

given thou tl~e ~rnpioyee i~~y r~~at b~ able to ~erfo~n fih~ e~serztial f~n~ti~ns of ~izs cir her

pos tic~i~ t~znpQraril~. See TM~VP Policy; E~ixb t S. ~Vh~n a facility uperiirtendent ci~termine:~

that there ~re'I'I~1tWP positions av~ laL~l~ within a facility, they acre Offered to any ~zizplc~y~~ who

is currently receiving'v~rorl~~rs` cc~ pe~ati~n benefits fi r a work-r~latec~. injuxy axed for wh~mi

there is a medical report t at'stat~s ire ems lo~~e-can return to restricted duty wrth specz~c lis~~d

limztat ans a~c~, that the err~~lc~y~e' ~ "need for maci~fzed "urr~rk %s got IikeZy ~o b~ pe~man~nt and

s2iouid be r~~c~l~~d r~vzthin 12~ days". Id, '~ he medical report ~-nust ~l~r~ state if the emplaye~ "is

enupled wit1~ tie walkzng and standing rec~iiire~nenfis :cif the job.. The.: H:e~.ring Of~"icex found morepers ~si~~e the ~pini~n of I.nti~:pendent h1e~.ica1 Exaznin~xY Ur. I-~y~r~an dick; a $lard CerG~fi~dt3rt~~c~p~die ~urgetin, ~vho ~~ ~mii~~el Luster can ,Tiny 14, ~~?~6 and way cif t ae vi~;w t~ a1: tl ~h~ nmei-~aes ~nc3 f1atC~n~d arches vaere due to h~raclitary r~.ther than wc~rl~-related f~c~c~rs. sheeerncluded that his disal~ilit~* was not ~a~i ~-related.

~ The. TMVTP pc~lx~~ sp~cift~ally r~ccignizes ik~at ~mp~c~ye~s participating zn die TM~+TP pr+agra~are "nit necessarily capable' Q~`perfarrning the ~sse~itxal functiQrts at`their position, for thisl mzt~d i~me p~~ aci, but this is cons st~zit with the ~e~,porary nature anc~ tl~~ goal ~f TMWP", SheE~iibii 5

::Inc denta:I inr~z~t~ cQnt~c~'> is " iiterac~t an with ixi~nat~s ~vher~ that interaction is g~i-~erallyli ~iteci to et~incidental me~ting~ in ca~rnan spices" antt "specifically e dudes the exercise off'st~pervis nn crr care a id cusfcret~ ~bli~~.tian ~vitli xesp~ct icy inmates;" ~~e Exhibit 5; TIvIWI'Pa~icy~.

c~p~Y~l~ of ha~rin~, at the very Ieast, inc c~en~al contact with inrnat~s.~ Inc . 'T~e f~~ility's

supery gar c~ri e~fend T~VI't~P fir anat,~t~i Gt1 days; If s~f~cient modified v~r~ark is available;

employees life Luster who have sut~ered a ~c~n-wark-r~l~t~d i~ijury, see fn.4, and n»et the

~riteria,j~.i~t autl ned.may also be assigrte ~ to a designated T1VI~P position, c~nsisten~ with a

facility's t~p~raticro seeds ~ The posit~cizis t it ~av .been.. determined as suitable for '~'MVt~~' at

VM 1-Sl~zzrl~y are the pecl~~~ an trap, ~kie SMi.:T Control R.caam ~n~i the f~c~li ' ~ t~rw .

Based on a medical repart fro:~n Lt~st~r''s pri~?a~u`y care physician Dr. Michael Sheehy, that

Lu ter'su~f~~eti frt~xn d'zal~etes ~nnd had de-u~lc~ d p~ablems v~ith his feet r~vhi+ch prevented ~i rn

from b~in~ on Iiis `eet for :more than 4 Ali hours per shift, the DQC a~si ned Lustex to r~:adified

duty frcizn NI~y 14, ̀20i~3 un~l ept~Tnber 14, ~0~~, with that restriction and r~nly incidental

innate ccii~faaC. See Exhibit 3. Gn ~e~tembex 16., ~t}03, ~u~t~r returneet to unrestricted dui.

Hvv~ever, as a result of medical .infc~~nat crn a it provided by Dr. Sheehy stating, that I;~:~ster

could not stand vn l is feet for moxe than an kiour, Luster was granted a see~nd modified duty

assignment unde~'TI~S~VP fir I20 clays, ~ori~ T?~ce~n~er 1~, ~~03 until April 1t~, 2t}fl4, although

~' ":C"h~ Tt~~IWI' ̀pQli~~~ requires ~n employee to provide docurr~e~itat on cif me~ic~l r~s~r ct ons, fmay, on the 64t~, 90c~, _end 120t~' days. It also r~qu~res new ctacumentatian for every ~eque~t farTMWP` modified work. Luster's corzap~~i.nt~ about the DOS's cc~nscant dem~tYd for paperworkshe tc~ wise crut of~the xequiresnents ofthe pra~;r~rn itself and not fax ~iurposes a~ 1~arassmes~t,

' If at the end ~f 12t7 days, Che employ`ee's nledicai el~cumentatian ndic~te~ Che need fcsr tierrioditicc! work tc~ continue; the Siiperintendez~t of`tlie facility must det~nnine whether tc~ ~xtencl: tfog another ~Q ci~y~, based "~urelj~ upon the f~llowzng:" (a} the availability o~m~d~fi~d work~?crs tic►ns; and (b~ medical dr~cumentatto , i~clicating that the employee will be able ko return tofizll-time;. u~cestrictecl c~uty'witli n those &q days:"

~ I-I~r~ever, if a Sup~r%~tend~rii determines ~tl~i~t'th~ pcasiti~n is rce~ec~ for an emplt~yee who iscurrently tin nd~~trial accident leave, a ri~in~worl~-related ~'M~ will be suspended arterminaat~d and the bumped ~rnployee tnu~t either return to full duty or be placed on an"dp~raprir~~e;" type of leave. Tel.

this t rrxe his T1~IW~ xes~i~t crr~s were no st~.~ding or wall~in~, ~~r mv~e than an hoer a day,_

ser~entary as rnuc~. s pc~~~ibl~; ~o lif~ir~g ~f more than 20 pounds and incidental inm~t~ contact.

only',' ~~e Exhibit 4. C? ~ Jaz~uar~ 30, 20Q5, ~3r. Sheehy subrriitted a Medical Gertific~tic~n

Stat~~n~nt stating that Luster was s~ff~ring ~r~ -i "wor~enin~°' chronic diab~tes'that now required.

daily iz~:~u~in.~° See E~ i~i~ 7.

After submitting several req~:~ests ~'or additional TM"~~irP ~e~ve that failed ts~ prtr~vide a

projection €~r e~tirnate of -how 1c~ng. Luster would lae on wadi#ie ~ d~.t~y, vvh~n 1~e wc~~.~d be cleared

fc~r f~1Tlur~restrzct~d ~ltaty or whether ~~ c~u~d have incic~erit~.l innsate contact,, I.~uster suh it~d

rrm~dical note c ~.ted 1VI~y , 2t~.(}5, from pi~di~tr st Kevin M~rari; U.P:Iv1. far ~i~ht duty fc►r 1~,~

days -and.. ineid~~tal inmate contaet<~ j Can ~'Iay ~4, 2t}O5, Lus~t~r went to ~vI~I-Shirley end

repre~ei~ted to C taiia ~}uinli-v~n that l~~ l~ac~ been. approved fir alight-dusty ~signiment, and

b~se~ can this repr~senta~ion ui~liv~n asszgn~d-him ~o tk~~ pe~i~l Manage ant Tnit (t`SMU"j

Cent I R.a~i~.~~ O~x the ~'o11+~wz~g dad, NSay 26, 2Q05, Luster xepc~rted t~ word anti asked t~ tie

assigner to the tower position instead n~th~ SMU ~c~~t~ol I~oc~rn but was talel he hack' to xepor~ tc~

g Nez~her ~f tl~e~e first t`wo medical notes raidic~ted th~1 Lustex could h~tv~ nn~ate ccrnta~~C..DQC's ciitt~ a~si~;nrt~ient fort first two T~VI`W~''~ lirzi tecl him tc~ "ins etez~tal" rnm~t~ conduct,presumably because o~ his significant ambulaiian limitations. D{~+~ may aiscy havecc~rr~nrnuni~ateel with Luster° s physician srr~ce an adc~i~ ~ l 2.0 pound .limitation ~~ included far the~~ccazad TM`VJl'.

o ~m~lainanf requested and was allowed i~ntes~mi~t~i~t leave under the Family d I~]ec~ic~lheave .1aet ~"FML~") and ~ related ~~:ate policy in ~~der tc~ o~icain medical t~eatment>

L I This not was not ~n Complainant's persann~l ~1e d~~r~ng discovery but was included i~ therecord.

~~ 'Phis is the first of :several noteworthy instances of the Hearing C)ffice~'s re~`iasal to creditLuster's testimony and adoption of a contradicticir~ version a# ~ver~t~~: LusC~~ testified that he talctCaptain t~ui~~l van that he h~<i not-yet been ~ppr~ved for'TIv3WP rnodi~ed duty and thatQuinli~an ordexed hizn ncanetheless tt~ wt~~l~ a modified duty as~igrxzn~nt: The Heztrin~; ()~~acerrejected I~,us~er°s test~~ncrny.

the ~antrr~l I~.ciom. Truster tlner~after rent home sick shortly after repc~z~ing to tYae Control Room

end claim eeT to l~v ~~uff~red a wc~rl~-related injury: "[1~ost arch tin bt~th feet fxom v~~arin boats

-- anlci~s s~~elled u~.'~ ~~~ ~v~ opt cif work for five ~cnc~nt,~as, frt~m May ~1, 2Q4~ tti November l:,

20 5, and filed ~: chin fai Worker"s c~rn~ensat cr~.~~ S~~ Exhibit 7.

Chu ~u~:zsC ~6, 20Q~, Luster submitted a ~ pest dat~cl August 26; ZOUS, tv ~r~a~- alterative

foot-wear li~catrs~ ~£Yics di~bet~s, net~xapathy ~ c~ foot pai~~; rather f~ian tine T)~parkment-issued

un fc~rrn ~raats~ which w granted. Luster sum tt~d ~: edic~:i fc~rrn ~rarn I~r. Sheehy date

~uugu~t 29; 2005, stating that h~ was- experiencing bilateral fraot pain that vas "z~currenti, ehro.nic

eonditian zlu to diabetes" that r~n~er~d Luster °<ursahle to stani~ for periods of time" and for na

moxe tli~n ~ 5 tnz~.utes in his-work belt, I}r. Sheehy also said chat it was ̀°unknown" when

Luster's ~o~:cli~ian ~vvould end, "untcnown"'rx~hen h~ could xetuxr~ to a "fia~I schedule" and tl~t tae

needed to work znte~~m tt~ritl~ ~x az~ "unknown ~uratian of time'° T:~.s~r v as gr~~zted thirty d~.ys

af` ~1~IT~,A l~~y~ ~t~r physical therapy franc A~~ust 29, 2Q05 H ugh September 2$, 2005, b~.xt vvas

ir~ormeci th~.t the medical note did ~xacrt quail fy h xn for fhe T~r±IWP pra~ram because it failed to

provide prc~~nc~sis fc~r re~arn do du~y.T~

Duster-was ~liowed an.pther four-month '[`MVJI' rzl~di~-~e~. ~~.~ty a,~sign7~~ent tQ the SML7

~antr~l I7:c~gm from I`~ovenib~r T; 2 05 through 1'vlarch I, 2Q4~i, v~1ith no proiangetl standing car

~~ T1ae industrial acczdent ~larrn was initially din e~ by the IVl~ssa~husetts H:uz~an ResourcesDivi.sian, but pursuant tv a ciecisic~n ~i# the Department s~f Industrial. Acc ents finding that thework boots Lu~~e~` was required t~s weir may have contr.`tbuted to his foot condition, tf~~ partiessubsequently executed an afire gent to cover .Luster"s absence from. ~vT~y 31, 2C~~5 to Navemb~r1, 204.

'~ The ~~t~ also failed to s~ t~ thafi T.,uster 1i~d b~eii p~rsanally ~xarr~in~d by the. hys ei~n.Throughout this period the I7iJC wrote L~k~ter to inform hire when he failed fia q~i~.lify ~'ormc~t~ifi~d duty' uiid~r ~h~ I'LVIWP ~arogram k~ec~us~ his ~a~erwc~r4~ ryas in~.dequate. RepeatedlyLaster ~v~s i~i~~rr ed that-his paperwork :~ai1~d tc~ specify how long he ~vt~uld need ri~odifi~d dufiy,a .regtzirer~~nt~-under the. TMWP policy.

wa~~Ci~? ;limited stair use ati~ inciderit~ ir~a7ate contact. ~nl~, See Joint ~~hibit 22< Lusher was

ask~~ to provide updatee~ rri~d~cal xep~s~ts every thirty Sys ~s r~quire~ by fhe 'AM P Pal cy.

Luster requested io wear ten is gar running ~hcr~s b~seci on aza E3ctaber ~0, X0(}5 r~~eclic~l Hate, dui

t~ his diabetic: p~ri~hutal neuropat~i~~ and once Dt7C clarified: with his medical ~rsavider that t~~~

need for the ~cc+ammc~dation fcir his: medical corrditic~n vuas permanent; the request was all~we~.

~~e ~xh6it ~5.

I, ester's ~t~ ~~rlµd~.~ty assignrxzen~ ~z~decl can arch 2, ~QU6, Can M~ircli 6, 20t}~ Cap~ai~~

~!t~ ~'~van nc~ti~ed l~~n that ~~ ~rould need 'to resu~nne narmal duties, L,u~ter urent ~orrr~ "sick"

that day whzch was Chi last clay he l y~ calm report ~ to v~rark. Luster fiI ec~ an inclu~tr al

ae~iclenC el~.im the next day. ~)uring the z~e~t fifteen rYionCl~s, I,ust~ was ~a~~zt~d ~i£ty-two weeds

of n~eci~~al leave under the C~minanwe~Zt~i's E ~h ~~d ~a~n ly ~'xien.d y Benefits ~rl~rch 6, ~0~6

throupl~ 1Vlarcli 5, 2pt}7)~s a~.c~ are additional twelve week ~f FI1t.[L~i l~a~e ~fl~ril 1, 2{~Q7 t~iroug

J r ~ Er, 2(1 7). ~n April 18; 2007', ~,u~ter's medical leave under the '~~1?SIfA ar~d EF'FBA ~v~s

extended f+ar t last'~ime thro~lgh ~u~ze 6; '?p 7, at rah ch fro nt he lxad u~~d his m irriuxt~

ber~efzt~ un~e~ the progzams. During this time L~:tster had. surgery crn bot~i l~i~ felt. ~~'

C?n may '7, 24(1'77 a month 1a~fore his l~~v~ e~pxred, T.,uster sutsxzmztt~d his fzr~t acid ~n3y

r~~uest ̀Fcrr a ieas4na~al~ accornzi~ociatiorl a1oaY~ vrith tnec ica~ d+~curnentation froze L)r. Piz to

which ryas dated. l'~ay 7, 20 7 ancl, stated t~iat Luster 1~ad s~.f`fer~d -~i~l~ feet:pr~ablerns fnr the pest

three years "with tie problem getting worse " fee• Jozrzt E~.h bit 47 anc~ 58. He stated further that

Luster °`needs tc~ lrrnit ~i~ work" at MCI-Shirley tt~ "an area with n~ inmate contact or t~xat

nvc~ives repetitive ambulation ar stair us~g~ dur ~~ tli~ days,>' anci that st~bj c~ to tries

s Ivledical teav~ was ~xtentled, t~s March 31, 2tl{~7:

~s'`L~ster hack surgery can dais lei feicit an April 1 ~, ZQ06 Inc! his r~~ht ~oc~t ~~ t7ctoUer 5, 2~0~.8

restrietir~ns Tie c~u~~ i~eturn to r~vr~rk on 7u~e Vii, 2~0'7.r~ T , (~rnp~as s acide~). T7~x: ~ zzut~ sent a

s~ca~d l~~ter elated I~I~y ~ 1, 2t~07 that acknowledges his r~e~ipt cif the seven essenti~~ duties cif

Lus~~r's Carreetit~n ~f~icer I ~iastian frarn e T~t~G. However, t~rhle ret~:inzng tYie ambiilatian

and stair usa:~e restz~ct cans, ibis ~o~e grrs is ~n~ reference to i~ ate ~iintact at all anti states- that

[this v~c~rk r~~trictic~n repr~~~nts ~t~ e~tin~at~d TM~ {u~rrrz~nezlt stat~.ts~ duration and. ~airz,

~t~dicat~s~ that Luster will return to wark ~n Jtzn~ 6, 2UQ`7~ See Exliilait Z7. (Fimph~,sz~ adt~ed).

The record reveals that a dune 29, 200'7., ~~i~ r~vi~wizlg Lus~er'~ medical restrict ans asx 3

~iaving sev~r~ conversations utith I7r: Pzz~ut~ to verify Ii s restrictions as set. fartl in his May 7;

2U071et~cr, the T)t}C'~ Q~~c~ af~f~r ~:tive Act~~n c~er~zzed Luster's request fc~r a reasonable

ac~~ in~aciatia~ stating to him that "[tJ~e restriction of n~ i~u~xate contact greatly impacts tl~e

~sser~ti~,l fund ~s~s of yr ur position and ~he~ef~~e I a~ri unable to ~ppra~ve yQUr bequest for

R:easc~na~'Ie ~ceammvclat on,"' Sep Ex~~ibit I9,

Fallowing the expiration, Qf his m.~dical. Ieave on ruse 6, 2E}0~'; the 3~C}G infcn~ned :Luster

lie h~tl to r~tuxn to ful! duty (or f~c~ sepaxation from s~~vic~ tax retrremenf.) unless :lie gt~al find for

TML'!~'. As a result, D~`.1'`izzutc~ sent a l iter iri support oFa fourth 'T'1~~1VdP position ~`c~r l2C? clays

which was simz~ar tc~ his May 31, ~~07 lettier except teat Luster as restr c~~d to K iced

repetitive azxzbulati~n and, cvulc~ have incidental inmate contact. A:lsa, the refcren:ce to

"perm er~f status" was ~.el~t~~ and replaced with the follo~c~'ing lan~t~a~;e: "[t]h s work

r~strictzc~ri repzesent~ nodifzed duty feir 12Q days; likely t~+ return to full dut~,at t~xe er~~ t~f that

t rn~." ~a See exhibit 1,~. ~E ~ ~s s add~c~}. 'I"he reeord reveals that Associate ~c~n~ issioner;

17 I~r.1'izzutq recar~ e~deci eit~~~r a stationary tower positiern ~r erirca~t~r driving position as<Abes~-suite for his problem,'. indicating i'itrther, a"(non-control positit~~}.

~$ When ~-~or~ned ~kza~ I.,tzster needed tt~ request a~ additional ~(l days frazn leis Iasi T1~~~~VF as ~9

Rc~i~alcl L?uval exercising hzs discretion under the TMWI' ~'alicyy declined to grant Lu~t~r an.

addi~t~na1; 6(l days c~~ modified. duty, ac~~pting the rec~znr~endaticin cif I7U~'s ~+Vorker'~

G~mpen ation I7ivisio~ bassc~cl can t ie medical d+~cun~~ritatian ~rc~zn I~r: Piz~uto 19 ~ncl a rn~d cal

re~aort of i~1i~n~ ~apri~ M.D. dated January 25 20q'7; sib iCted in c~n~iection with Luster's

industrial accident cl~izn. Tn t~iat apart, L~r. Caprio sta#ed that Luster "is incapable c~f'retuniing

tc~ his xni~~ occ~t}~af ors,, aid that ̀°for-alt in~e~~s ve [~icJ purposes he is p~~°tnanently and

pa~ti~lly ctisal~lecl fr~rri hip prior occupation and paid capacity is rxior~ lil~ely than nit to be

per ane~~'°: ~° fee E i1~ t 7, In a letter dated Uct~a~e~ ~, ~0~7, I)QC informed Luster t~a.~,

having found that I~~ was ineligible far ~: r~a~sonak?1e ac~ainn~odatian or rricrdified duty based au

medical clo~ui ~iits it l~~d received that inda~~ted that Luster v as unable tes per~i~rm the essential

~'unction~ requ r~~ of a_C~irrectic~ns f3~~icer, zt would be seeking his termination. T7~rC also

5c~ught invvlunt~.ry ac~~r~~zita~ ~lisabilit}J rat rem~nt on: Luster's'be~ialf ar,.d on.Jara~ary 30, X008;.

Luster ~a.~ appra~!~d far ordinary diSaY~i~z~ rat cement by the State T3c~ard c~~ Retirement.

Aecordzng to the Hear`t~~ ~~`ficer, Lu~t~r a5serks tF~,t despite liis ch~°cinic foot pain, he

wQUI~ have begin able to pe~Fizri~ tt e ~ssc~zxtial ~'uz7ctic~ns ~f' ~ C~►rr~ctian Officer I position if

granted tie reasanable ~ccomuurr3odat an of an an~oing ir~~d~fied duty assi.~nznent with Itm tatians

on walking, standing anel inmate u~ n~act'a~d vv tai regular time cuff ~'or cic~etpr's ~.pp~i~trnent~.

matter cif procedure, Dr., Piz uta send DC}C mother letter elai;ec~ August 9, 2Q{~Z, that varied onlyby replacing 12~ days wit~r 6Q days. 5e~ Joint Exhibit SS.

~~ In`our Sri ~v, Associate Commissioner Dual reasc~iza~iy rejected Dr. I'i~ul~'s statern~~t in hisseeand letter dated August ~; ZOp'7 €h it I,usCex was ~ .l~e~y tci return to duty at the-end vf~~ 60dais.

~'o ]fix, Caprio st~t~d Portlier, "I s~iotisly ciaul~t ti~er~ is doing to be fi~rther rnpr ~v~r~e fi to hisoverall condi'~on... biit T certainly ~kon't think he'Il aver return tca ~rark as, ~ prism guard."~"herefi~re tie prognosis is bl~al~ for him tc+ return to has former ~ccupa~icin:>,

~~~

'The Hearing !C) ~ce~. ̀°accepted" th°is as ertit~n for p~?~ses of ~~al~r~ rig ~.uster's Grim that kze

was denied a reasonably accc~mmc~datic~n and. as a result failed to sufficiently analyze the

~rrelirninary ~uesti~n a~ ~vhetl~er' Linter -was a gt~~lif ~d h~.nc~icapped indiviclu~l in the first place.

~t i~ beyond que~tic~n tl7at in order to state ~ claim ~t~r handicapped d~scrirni~c~at az~ under G,L. c.

1 1B, ~ x(16), a ~rl~intiff imust shoes t2~at ~s)he is a qualified h .~zca ped g~rsoza; that is,

st~zn~o:~e h~ ~ c~pabl~ ~f p~rfar ng the esse~nt a~ fu~l~tian:s t~f the pr~~itian revolved Frith [ar ,

without] a ~~a~onabl~ aceammadation;"' Laba~te v. Hutchii~~ & Wh~~l~r, ~~~ bass.. $13, 821-22

(~ 997): S~.e Uau~~ier v, Stuihealth S~„~ci~~ti~ ergs. Znc:, 5~5 Sum. d X27, 24(7 (D. Masi.

2(}08).

`I`he Hearing t7~cer found ghat Luster lxas a dis~ksility. ~i~ronic foot pain as a r~sul~ ~f

diabetic neuro~iathy ca plicated by other fa.Gtors~ such as ~'~ll~n arches, calluses ~n~i ham ~rtc~e~

tla~~ "ct~ groxni~e [Luster"s~ abilzty t,~ walk anal wt~r~:" the also found ~t Liist~r anti his

dc~cto~s red ~~est~~ that h~ lie ~ndefin Cell excused ~rc~m inmafe cvnt~.ct, walking and stair usage:.

T7es~ to these nciirr~s, she- cc~ncl~.cted that as a recipient; of ark~r's Cr~rzmpen~a~on ~a~z~ents

and t~isabil ty retirement in 2(x(}8, L<i~ster vas t ~1~d under G.L. c. 152, § 75B (~ } tc~ a rebuttable

presumptrc~n of qualified ha~clzc~~r~ed st~t~zs~ Vi?hile sC is ~r~t~ th~.t t ie receipt of disability

b~i~efits dc~~~ eat pre lucke°Liz~t~r fro~r~ ra:zsia~~ a claim of d saU lity di~~cr tz~ ii~tirizi; Lahante v.

Hirtchins and. ~N~eeler, 42~ Mass4 81~; ~1~-2Q.(1~~6}, it dae~ nc~t a~tt~matcally make liim a

~`gitalifi~cl ~a~d cappe i" nclivi~~:~l; Chapter I52; ~ ~i~B (l) 5 t~~ that "[a]n}x ~.rn~~lt~~ce v~~tc~ 1~~~s

~u~t~ine a ~~7~rk-relate'a inj ir~~ ~i~~ is ca~abl~ o~ ~~rft~~~~ i~ , t~i~ ~~se~~~al ~I'uncti~n~ cat a

~a~~.icul~~ jc~b, c~~~ ~vhc~ would b~ c~~al~~r of der ~rt~sii~~.t[ie e ~~~nti~l Fur~c<~s~r~:~ cal such je~~ ~,rit

re~,~c~~ble a~ca~nnxcr~afiUris, sh~►~l b~ ~le~n~ec~ t~'~~ ~t t~t~ali~ied hat~di~~p~d`~~rsa~~ ~incier ~t~~

~r~~~ i~i~~ns c~.f chapter c~1~~ l~:un~re~ az~c1 ti..ft}~-i~nc B." ̀T'i~i.s .l~ n~ua~e l~ :~s t~~; yu~sticm <~f wvhe:~h~r

11.

~.:c~~t~r 'is or i.s ~zc~t "c~pa1~I c~~'~rfc~i-ming Che es~enti~l ~i~nctior,s" c~~'the Crii-~•~tinr~ t7~f`Eie~r I

~asi~ic~n, aai i~~r:~~ the F~I~aran~;t~tficer c~ic~ nit resolve rvh~n sloe r~~;nt ~l~rectl~v fics the r~.asniz~bl~

~ccom~nad~ti~~~ prc7nb c~t~the an~ly:~i~.

"~~'have car~fi~liy rev ewesi the T:~t~C's ~ra~r ds for appeal and the full record in this

mater aYxd have w~igl ~d all e:f the objeati~sns to Che dec sion'in accordance with the standard of

rev ~w stand herein. ~V~ con~lu~e at the s~xbstanti~.l weig}it ~?f the evidence fails to suppo~~t ~

coz~clu~ on that Linter was a qualified hanrl`c~ped individual capable o~ perfoxming the 4

~ssez~tiax functions ~~'~s jr b within the xn~artt ~g cif M.~{L. c. 15l I3, § 4(~ 6), 'fee Johanssc~n v:

M~ssaclaiisett~ T~~artment of ~o~•ectians, Superior ~Cc~urt Civil ~.etian no. 10-2~8}-H (Brassa~~,

J;) l~~rck~ 31~ 2(}1 l ). See al~c~ La~tirite v. Hutchins- & Vt?he~ler ~~4 I~!I~ss; 81:3, 8~1 f 1~97~,• Cox.

v. New En~~and'Tel &. TAI. Cc~., 414 Mas~~ 375, 383~8~; (~ 3~3.): The ~~~axai ~ t~f~cer,~Lu~ter

and tl~e l~t~C ~v~re ~Tl in ~,resment t~Zat "care and eust4dy" o~ inmates w~~ tie ~ssenc~ of a

C~cti~n C?ff~c~r i'~ ~~sxtia~. The skill set for the T?OC Correctan pffcer I ptsitiQn cl~scril~e~

seven "essential `unctions," .five involving direct and potenti~Ily vial~~t inrn~te contact

{escorfiing, ~are~in~; and ct recti'ng tYmates duriri~ work assr~7ents, respan~iing tc~ emet~encies,

~i~c~ pr~venti~ng ~ic~lence, escape axed su~cicle~}.

The Hearing, Officer e~ted Johan. son v: M~AL7, Appeals G~urrtrIl~to. 2045-~~1367,.p, 7

(2t?t17), {Rese t 3ut~g ent per Rule 1:~~ rivers nig .S~iperio~ Ct~urt and r~ an;d n case to

Iv~~~II~}'in su~pc~rt t~f her conclusion that a Cearr~ctic~n ~fcer I pos titan encc~m asses a variety

c f assi~ain~nts azld po~itie~r~s ar~d that the xnt~raetive prt~cess "m,i~ht have unca~erec~ an

ass gnmenC with lin~it~d waling and inmate ~antact" that L ~st~r c~u1d p~rEorr~ en an indefinite

ba is.~~ In that case; after:~:t~sing ~t the M~AI3; a disa~rlerl DC`tC ~arrecti€~ns +Cci~nselor T ss~ught

__~t Even assure. ng that,Luster's c~nta~t wzth inrriate~ ct~uld ~xave men minimized, it w~uTel not

12

judicial review which resulted in a r~~naxi~ from the ~~ppeal~ Court to the 1VICAD fir a lie~ing

~~z vrlaet~er the DC~~: ccr~ld ~~e ~rcasanably arc ~mn~z~idated f:1~e complainant, who way rest~~z~ted

f~r~~n Sri ~ i~~znate contact by her diem p~ovi ors. ~n remand, liowe°ver; the Full Commission

d~t~r~z~ined tkta~ the Campiainant vis as not entitled to ~ reasonable accommodation (ar int~ra~tive

discussion) beca~ise she was neat a <`qual fed hanc~ic~pped person" sine an esse~ti~1 function of

~}()~'s p4sitioi~ ref Correctiai s C ui~~elox I is inmate cont~~t and her mec~ cal restrietic,n anct

refusal. to yvork wi~i inmates r~nc~~red her ̀~a~.qu~.l fiecl far tl~e positiciin, a deb sion;afi~'i~rriect by the

up~ric~r ~a~art on j~zdxcia~ review. Jaharis~on v. MCt~D, Sup~rox C~aurt C.A. 10-258"9-T-I.

Here, the Hearing ~Of~icer co~.clitded fiat the crediksTe ~~fdence procluc~cl at pudic

hearing in this case "indicates tlxat [whi1~] mast correction officex positici~s involve ~ruxiat~

confaet; w~lkzng, and standing ...these att~~ibutes are got the pximary f~aCur~s ~f`er~ch ar~d every

~s~rrection e~f#"zc~r assignment:" the relied on the temporary nmodified ~sig~unents u~cler the

DOG's "~MWP ~'ol ~y to d~mr~r.~trate tk~is ;end skated further th~~t it ~va~ "possible'" tl~a:~~ an

interaekiv~ proe~ss might have tu~cervered an ass;~z~n~n~ tha.~ met L;ustez,'s ~es~retia~, Hawevr,

t ie I~flC explicitly states-iii its Pol ar that e plo ens paa~ci~ating' i~,the pry ratty <`are not

necessax l~ ca~~:~1e 4f' ~er~arm:ing tli~ essential functions s~f their p~~ t tin°' ~.nd "consistent with.

the t~r~iporazy nature and the goal of T1t~WY"" are ~.liowec~ tei work far a s~iort clurati~oz~ ~:i~ttil they

pan return to active duty. "I'he 1M~VP Ptal ey specifically different at~s "iztc ~ent~.i inmate

cci~tact" that is Iimitcd tci "ca nci~ ~tal meetin~~ i~,co~~an space" frcam inmate co~taet

rcqui~~ ~+ar "the ~r~p~r~tision ~~ care aricl custody ~f i~xrrzates"y_ ~ the "primary c uts" caf' the

render the care function of i~m~te ctsr~tact nonessential to t ae Gorrecticm tiff per 1 position. Sec~c~x, 414 Iv~~.~s. at 387 (a~firmin~ tYie deciszor~ t~f a Superior court ~j~~.ge ~tho :found that eventhotigl a fitn~;tic~n rarely o~cuz~rec~, it "xs not unforeseeable khat this ski11 waul~ be necessary~iurzn~ an emergency,; car even ~ri~nz ~ir~ie ~o time."}

13

~rrect on. C3~~cer I pasz't nn. fee Exhibit ~ permanent po~itir~~i that limier ar eliin nafi~s

mate contact is ~t~ l~n~~r a Garrectic~n C)fi'icer S position; but a n~~-and different j'ob. R:n

~rn~layer is nerti r~gaiire to accc~mn~odate a ha d cap~zed emp~oye~ by t~ansf~rring the employee

t€~ a yew or cliff re~i ppsit gin. ~~ Fiurri~ra. v. ~~,rva~rd LT~iversitvy ~ 6 ~, S~~p. 2d 154 (D' Mass,

2~07~ afff'rl a~ 1, ~t~0~ (un tib~ished). "'I've I3gC; is :not r~gt~iir d to ~~I~t the te~~p~r y'T"I~1V~P

p~sitic~~r pez~nazientty to h~nc~icapped c~r~ectii~ns c~~icer~ who are iao longer qu.~1~f`~ for their

jibs. Such a decision w~uid le~ci tc~ t~~e ~nc~ a~'the prc~~xa~ ai d frus~at~ the raudabl~ goal of

pr~vidin in~urec~ esn~l;oyees vr''i:Ch ~n opportunity ~o return to v,~~r~ c~r~ a temporary, madtfi'ed

bads until fi.~11 recovery from a w€ rk ax rte r~-~vrl~-rel~fied injury, even. i~' they ire unqu~l ~ie~,,

~1 ei~ tem~oraril~r, ~c~ perform t1~~ ~arrectit~n C7~fic~r I ~iosit ~n;~ Lus#~r b~n~~tec~ ~r~m the

~'IvIVVP progr~rrR and w ,s able tc~ ~ai~ticipafie fc~r-three separate 1~Q day p oets with limited or rig

~n~te ct~ntaet and offer restrictions elespite the. r~luctari~ and r~}~eated failure of L'~ster's

~~edical pxt~viders t~ site with ~n~ pre~as~on the d.~r~tit~n crf his rests etipn:~ ar~d when h~ cauid

ret~rri fay ~~tiv+e duty: after almost four years o~'znedic~t lave; industrial ~cc c~er~t leave and

mcrc~iEied ~ositians, the D~?C insisted ~n this in~orm~tic~n (wlaieh is r~ uiredunc~er the program}

1~e~crre allavviri~ T,u~ter his ~`~ firth TTvIW1' pasitian. Tnst~aci, T~~st~:r far the firs~C tii~te ~.ppli~ti fps a

reasanab~e aecomrn~d~:tic~~n sup~c~rted b~ ~neclical clocumenC~.tic~n ~~ tli the explicit permain~x~t

re~trictian cif "~a inm t contact",'wYiich w~.s denied after ~t~C cansul~ed with his ~me~ cal

provider and verifi~c~ his rnedreal r~striet cans; because "jt]h~ restriction c~~' ~~ inmate contact

greatly irnp~ets the essential ~ur~c~ians t~~;your pis tabn;>°

~Ne canclucle that the substantial we ~h~ cif the evidence supporks a conelus ern that an

~'- Presumably the Cotnmon~ealth ~~.ves r~~nep though this pxagzain ~nt~ injured' ~~c~rkers arepaid where c~tl erwise they would ether lae laid only a percentage o£ theix nGOm~ t~z~ na income.at all..

14

~~s astral duty. oftk~e Luster's job ~s inmate contact and tlriat t~e..nm~~ic~l ~rahibition qn inmate

con~aet set tit in various rr~edieal reports is unass~il~blc evidence t~iat Luster is nt~t a "t~uali~ed

handicapped p~rs~n" anc~ has th~refare failed to miak~ out a prima Facie case of hind c~

t~ scriri~inatit~r~. fee Jt~haa~zsson~ .Superior Court C:A. 10-258 -I- (an essential eler~~r~t +a~ a

~orrecticin ~aurtselar 1 position i~ i~mat~ contact ai d T?t~ empl~ye~'s medical restriction ~f nc~

mate comet rer~de~~ci her. an ~nqual died hand ct~pp~cl tae st~n~. , le the DC}G was gen~rc~u~

in giving road fled ~u~'y as~i~tzt~cen~s ~o Luster under its T`ll~~?VP ~rograrxa, this prt~~;ram was.

'expressly temporary in mature and re~~rv~~ for pe~sort~ w~iti were not p~rza~ai~ez2tly restri~t~d

m perform n~ the ~ssen~ial hu~tctions c~~their jgb. ~liapter 151B.> ~ 4(16} does not require that.

a~ e T yer create a new dos thin whin az~ e~rnplayee i~ r~t~t capable s~fperfQr~nin the:duties of

lus ~'a~r position, w~iich is what per~ranent place~n~nt in a TMWP jal~ vvoulc~ enta5l. See..

k~.iissell v. Cc~al~~I~icl~ ~~:san H~,~s~a. Inc., 4~3 Mass. 453,. 454 (2002 , .

Fad the reasons set f~rt~ brave; y~~ hexeby rev~rs~ the deczs on ~f tiie Nearing Officer.

This Order repr~sen~s the final ;~;tion e~ tie CQZnmi~storl for purposes ~~ M.G.L, c: 30A. Any

party ~, sieved by this final d~teianin~tion .may c~~t~st the Corn iss can's elecis~an by filing a

complaint in superior etsurt s~ king judicial review, togefi~er with a ec~py afthe transcript of

pra~e~ciin;s. Su~~ tact an mint be I'il~d withiix thirty (30~ days ci~'rece pt o~"this cleeasian and

anust be filed 7 accordance with :1~I.Cr.L. G. 30A; c, 15.1 3, ~6 and the 1996 Staz~~ ing Order ~n

Ju~ic~al R.~vie~v of agency Aclion~. ~a T~~ to file tx petiiion ire ec~ art withzn th rCy (30) da}~s cif

recent of this order will cctns~ Lute a waiver ofthe aggrieved party°s right to appeal. pursu~i~t to

1Vi:G,I:,. c. 151B, ~,'~.

15

~J O~#:DER:EI~ phis 5 clay of ~.p~iI , 2012.r ,,,~

t

~I1TIl T~I7~3.

~'1d1~STlc'T~1.

~JLli'll~;c~ ~~"iQT12 . ~7~i~T

1TiTY11~aS1C1 ~'

amie WillaznsanCozxu~~sioner