936 F.2d 576
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 51, et
al., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SECRETARY OF the DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-15702.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 10, 1991.
Decided July 2, 1991.
Before CHAMBERS, BRUNETTI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
The Secretary of the Department of the Treasury appeals the district court's denial of its motion to dissolve an order requiring that "[t]he U.S. Mint will continue to employ Mildred Miller as a Coin Checker WG-02 and will find reasonable accommodation of her handicapping conditions." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1),1 and we remand to the district court with instructions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and to enter a final order.
The district court's order has no findings of fact or conclusions of law as Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires. Orally, the court stated that Miller has "been working [at the Mint] for 21 years and she's been doing her job for 21 years, and I think that the government can expend some efforts in accommodating her." The court added that the Mint should "accommodate [Miller] in Grade 2 so that she has something to do over there because she's a good worker." However, these comments are insufficient to define the parameters of "reasonable accommodation," or to permit appellate review of whether the record, including the Rehabilitation Specialist's report, supports the relief ordered.
We therefore remand to the district court with instructions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Miller's qualifications for the position in question; whether she can perform the essential functions of a coin checker with specific, reasonable accommodations; and whether the Secretary has met his burden of showing an inability to accommodate in light of our recent decisions in Fuller v. Frank, 916 F.2d 558, 562 (9th Cir.1990) (employee must "be qualified for the then current 'position' he holds, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1613.702( [f], and transfer is not required") and Lucero v. Hart, 915 F.2d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir.1990) (Rehabilitation Act not violated by firing employee who could not meet minimum requirements of position when reasonable efforts to accommodate failed). Given that the trial has been completed and the Rehabilitation Specialist's report has been submitted at the court's request, we also see no reason for further delay in rendering a final judgment.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
We reject Miller's challenge to our appellate jurisdiction. Section Sec. 1292(a)(1) authorizes appeals from interlocutory orders refusing to dissolve injunctions. After the Rehabilitation Specialist issued its report illuminating what accommodations were possible, the Secretary could move to dissolve the injunction on the grounds that the report showed a continuing obligation to retain Miller to be inequitable and that the government had fulfilled its responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 791. Thus, this appeal is not merely a "ploy" to interpose an untimely appeal of the district court's prior orders