I reconsider my 2004 article in which I opined that, because the hypothetical letter carrier could not carry the mail, he was not a "qualified individual with a disability" and, therefore, he was not entitled to the ergonomic chair he requested to sit in while answering the phone in his postmaster's office. I still believe that my opinion was correct, but decisions issued by EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) put my opinion in doubt. Read the article and be transported to the frontier of "essential function" caselaw under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.