[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
All right, our final case for today is 24-2369 Chafin v. OPM.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
Ms. Moses, we only have you here today, correct? Yes, Your Honor. All right, please proceed. Thank you.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors. It may have pleased the Court. I'm not sure if it's still morning, but either way.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
I did want to address a housekeeping matter before I get to the merits of the argument here. I noticed when I was finalizing my preparation for oral argument that there are documents missing. from the joint appendix that Ms. Chafin filed. They should have been included, and they are referenced in the party's briefs. I did file those last night, and I also brought copies today for each of you and your clerks, but we did file that last night, and I have copies that I can share as well.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
The court should affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision because Ms. Chafin's inability to drive to work is irrelevant to whether she can render useful and efficient service in her position as an operational support technician.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
Now, this would be different, of course, if she were a bus driver, right?

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
If she were a bus driver and she now has a disability that prevents her from operating a bus, that would be directly related to her job.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that is right.

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
But her job does not require driving as a component of her job.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
That is correct. Her job, as reflected at Appendix Page 62, is one of a clerical nature, and it doesn't require any heavy lifting, as OPM found, or driving is also not an essential component.

[00:01:43] Speaker 02:
And if we were to agree with Ms. Strickland's argument, as presented to this Court, can every individual that has a reason that commuting is difficult for them along these lines, you know, would be able in any job to say they qualify as disabled, wouldn't they?

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
That's my concern. My concern with this is that it's a slippery slope. I don't see where a line could be drawn under the law that would allow Ms. Chapin's position to prevail while not wreaking havoc in the third employment system.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
I agree, Your Honor. It does open a door, and there are so many reasons why an employee might not be able to arrive at work. And In this case, what's particularly compelling is that Ms.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
Chafin doesn't argue that her disability actually prevents her job performance. She, again, just focuses specifically on her ability to get to work.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
And, you know, one of the factors that she points to is that it's cost prohibitive for her to ride share, right?

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
I mean, we all bear those costs, right? Wouldn't every federal employee then be able to say, I need to be able to tell a worker I need to be on disability because I don't want to have to pay to get to work.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
I would agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
Under her theory, if she changed her residence and moved across the street from her workplace, then she would no longer be disabled.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
Under her theory. Which makes no sense.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
I agree, Your Honor.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
Being disabled or not depends on where you live.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
Am I correct in understanding that there have been some MSQB decisions on this, but the Federal Circuit has never necessarily addressed this issue in a presidential decision to put it sort of to rest?

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
That is right, Your Honor, and JOLIF versus OPM.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
We have one non-prec, is that right? We have one non-prec that kind of talks about this?

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, what?

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
We have one non-presidential opinion that talks about this, is that right?

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, the court's affirmance of JOLIF versus OPM.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
And I do want to make another distinction that that case addresses employees who are covered under the civil service retirement system, and this case covers employees who are covered under the federal employee retirement system. The only difference between the two, because they're same in terms of governing disability retirement claims, is employees who were hired before or after 1983. So that's really the only difference there, but the language is nearly identical with respect to the standard.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
Is there anything else that you think that we might need to know about this case that maybe you're worried we don't already know?

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor. I think the case is pretty straightforward, and our positions are well represented in our filings. And unless the Court has any other questions, we respectfully request that the Court affirm the Board's decision.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
Have a nice day.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
You as well. Should I leave those copies, Your Honor?

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
We'll get them. They're from the clerk's office, so we'll be able to get them.