Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)

Citation: Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Parent Document: Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1996-08-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/723804/jankowski-lee-associates-v-cisneros/ ↗

Full Text

1,535 chars

28
As the ALJ's opinion noted, it is unlawful in certain circumstances to inquire about the severity of a handicap. In fact not only did Rusinov hide his disability, the record reflects he was embarrassed by it and disinclined even to discuss it. So how was the RPA management to know that someone who was apparently doing reasonably well with his MS really needed accommodations that were not afforded the 26 other tenants who had handicapped stickers or plates? Who has the burden of informing an apartment complex of what disability a tenant suffers as the result of a disease? The burden must lie with the party that possesses the information rather than the party that does not. The burden should remain with the person with the disability seeking the accommodation. The D.C. Circuit in Langon v. Department of Health and Human Services applied this standard while considering the analogous Rehabilitation Act accommodation provisions. The court insisted that because an employee with MS had been successfully performing her job requirements without an accommodation, "it was therefore incumbent on the [employee] to provide evidence to [the employer] showing that her disease had interfered to the point where [performance without an accommodation] was no longer possible." 959 F.2d 1053, 1059 (D.C.Cir.1992). While the law requires accommodation, when a disability is not otherwise visible it is incumbent on the person seeking the accommodation to alert those from whom he seeks it of the conditions that require accommodation.

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text