Whether a federal agency may redefine a security screening requirement as an 'essential job function' and eliminate reasonable accommodation duties under the Rehabilitation Act

1. Whether a federal agency may, consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and EEOC regulations, redefine a security screening requirement —such as a counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) examination —as an “essential job function, ” thereby eliminating the duty to provide reasonable accommodation to employees whose documented medical conditions render them unsuitable for such testing. 2. Whether mandatory Department of Defense regulations, including DoDI 5210.91 —which (a) prohibit adverse administrative action based solely on an unresolved polygraph result and (b) require medical deferral or exemption for individuals who are psychologically or medically unsuited for testing —are judicially enforceable under the Rehabilitation Act, or instead may be disregarded under a theory of unreviewable “security discretion. ” (App. F) 3. Whether courts may extend Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), beyond clearance adjudications to cover ordinary personnel and medical accommodation decisions, effectively placing federal employees ’ statutory rights outside judicial review even when no security clearance has been suspended, revoked, or unfavorably adjudicated. 4. Whether an agency that categorically refuses to consider disability-based accommodations or to engage in the interactive process required by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( g)(3) may nevertheless be deemed to i have acted lawfully under the Rehabilitation Act when its justifications are shifting, medically unsupported, and contrary to its own binding regulations. 11