Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge
Nancy D. Greene, Esquire
8500 Leesburg Pike, Ste 7000
Vienna, Virginia 22182 William H. Atwill, Esquire
101 N. King Street, Drawer 741
Leesburg, Virginia 20178 Dear Counsel:
Complainant, Ms. Gower, is a former employee of the defendant corporation, Kestler Financial Group, Inc., (KFG). Complainant alleged discrimination and termination due to her blindness and filed suit pursuant to the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-46 (Michie 2003). On April 17, 2003, this Court entered judgment for the defendant and issued a Letter of Opinion ("Opinion") stating that the complainant was accommodated as required under the Virginians with Disabilities Act and was not terminated due to her disability. Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-41 (Michie 2003).
The complainant now requests a Motion for Further Rulings on Plaintiff's claims as to the Court's Opinion. Complainant claims the Court did not fully dispose of the complaint under the Virginians with Disabilities Act for discrimination in employment and promotional practices. She also contends the Court erred in finding for the Respondent under Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-41(A) (Michie 2003), because the complainant's managers, Mr. Kestler and Mr. Schohner, treated her differently (as found by the Court); and the unrebuttted evidence that the latter excluded her from training that would have assisted her professional development.
Although a "Motion for Further Rulings" is neither recognized by statute nor case law in Virginia, the Court is willing to view it as a "Motion for Reconsideration" in light of the novelty of the issues this case raises under the Virginians with Disabilities Act.
Complainant asks the Court to consider the claims of disparate treatment and hostile work environment as a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-41(A) (Michie 2003). Considering the evidence, the Court finds nothing to support this contention. The Virginians with Disabilities Act has the laudable goal of protecting the rights of workers with disabilities. However, the evidence in this case does not support a finding of disparate treatment in the workplace protected by the Virginians with Disabilities Act. Therefore, this case is not representative of the types of claims that the Virginians with Disabilities Act was enacted to resolve.
The complainant contends that regardless of whether her job responsibilities included personally generating illustrations, the fact that KFG refused to train her in generating illustrations was a violation of "KFG's stated position of promoting professional development and cross-training and would, regardless of her job duties, support a claim of discrimination under section A of VDA." The Court does not agree and the evidence does not reflect that by failing to train Ms. Gower in the generation of illustrations, KFG prevented her from growing professionally and expanding her duties.
The Court found that, "KFG had been supportive of her professional development. It gave materials for her to listen to and paid for her to take the insurance examination course." The Court also found that "[w]hen the complainant was transferred to another division and under the supervision of Mr. Schonher, she was given job responsibilities that did not require further training."
Generating the computer illustrations was not necessary to the fulfillment of the complainant's job. No further accommodation was necessary for Ms. Gower to perform her job. The Court pointed out that while Ms. Gower was to be admired for her dedication and willingness to expand her responsibilities beyond those for which she was hired, "…her employer cannot be held responsible beyond the express language of the statute mandating that it '…make reasonable accommodation…if necessary to assist [her] in performing [her] job'."
Thus, the Court has fully disposed of Ms. Gower's claims as asserted in the amended bill of complaint, and Ms. Gower's request that the Court make further factual and legal findings and rulings regarding her claims under Va. Code Ann. § 51.5-41(A) (Michie 2003), that KFG discriminated against her in her employment and promotional practices solely because of her blindness is denied. Judgment is for the defendant.
Mr. Atwill shall prepare a Final Order reflecting this and the earlier opinion of the Court to which Ms. Greene may note her exception.
Very truly yours,
Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge