With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which vary from one facility to the next, from one tour to the next, and from one day to the next. Plaintiff herself has stated that the number of hours actually spent at the MPLSM per week vary considerably. Defendant is free to expand or contract the duties of an employee to suit its changing needs, but in so doing cannot alter plaintiff's right to seek protection under the Rehabilitation Act on the basis of her own job description. Numerous courts entertaining Rehabilitation Act claims have looked to position descriptions in assessing the essential functions of a job. See e.g., Treadwell, 707 F.2d at 476 n. 5; Prewitt, 662 F.2d at 298; Coleman v. Darden, 595 F.2d 533, 535 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 267, 62 L.Ed.2d 184 (1979); Jasany, 33 FEP Cases at 1117 (<HOLDING>); see also Daubert v. U.S. Postal Service, 733

A: holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act
B: holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation
C: holding that because plaintiff was not hired as a general postal employee to serve various functions within the post office but was employed specifically as the operator of a high speed letter sorting machine defendants duty to provide reasonable accommodation for his handicap was limited to adjustments within the job for which he was hired
D: holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state
C.