HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadllv0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
OECOISION
FILE: B-203553
MATTER OF:
DIGEST:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OP THE UNITEO STATESI
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
DATE: December 14, 1983
-07O
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Special
Equipment for Handicapped Employees
1. In appropriate circumstances, the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. S 701 et seq., author-
izes the expenditure of appropriated -f s-for special
equipment that will enable a qualified handicapped em-
ployee to perform his or her official duties. These
circumstances were not present in our previous deci-
sion, Matter of Internal Revenue Service, 61 Oomp.
Gen. 634 (1982), and the result therein is hereby
affirmed.
2. A reference in 61 Comp. Gen. 634 to an employee's
allergic reaction to tobacco smoke as a handicap was
not intended to refer to the term as defined in the
Act or its implementing regulations. 61 Comp. Gen.
634 is clarified.
The Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Oommission
(EEOC) has requested clarification of our decision at 61 Comp.
Gen. 634 (B-203553, September 24, 1982). In that decision, we held
that appropriated funds could not be used to purchase an air puri-
fier for the office of an Internal Revenue Service employee who
suffered from an allergy to tobacco smoke. The Chairman indicates
that certain Federal agencies have interpreted the decision as pro-
hibiting them from expending Government funds to comply with the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. S 701 et seq. He
requests that we revise our decision to clarify that in appropriate:
circumstances the Rehabilitation Act authorizes the expenditure of
appropriated funds for special equipment and furnishings to enable a
handicapped employee to perform his or her official duties. We --
affirm the result in 61 Camp. Gen. 634 (1982) but clarify its basis
to point out that the employee involved was not a qualified handi-
capped individual as defined in the Rehabilitation 'ct or its
implementing regulations.
In 61 Oomp. Gen. 634, 635, we stated that:
[I]n the absence of specific statutory authority, the
cost of special equipment and furnishings to enable an
employee to perform his or her official duties con-
stitutes a personal expense of the employee and is not
payable from appropriated funds.
In that case, neither the voucher that was questioned nor any
agency submission justified the purchase of the air purifier as
being authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It was not
/';3o t
-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadllv0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)