Anne C.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Heather A. Wilson, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 18, 2018

0120182110 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 18, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Anne C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Dr. Heather A. Wilson,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120182110

Hearing No. 560-2016-00291X

Agency No. 9V1M16008

DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s May 21,
2018, final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Management Assistant, GS-0334-07, at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

On February 2, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency
on the basis of disability (paraplegic) when:

1. On or about May 14, 2015, Complainant was denied telework;
2. On or about June 1, 2015, Complainant’s supervisor (S1) reassigned her to a new position
in which she was not allowed to telework;
3. On June 12, 2015, S1 stated that she was moving Complainant to another position because
of her illness and her wheelchair; and
4. On October 1, 2015, S1 placed Complainant in the surplus placement program while she
was on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120182110

2
After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ
subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.

The Agency issued its final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to
prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.

The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine”
if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105
(1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In
rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see
also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-
110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo).

In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify,
with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting
evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a
dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the
agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of
Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor.

With respect to Complainant’s reasonable accommodation claim, we find that the preponderance
of the evidence in the record establishes that the Agency reasonably accommodated Complainant
by providing her with extended paid and unpaid leave when she was unable to come to work for a
number of months. Further, Complainant failed to establish by preponderant evidence that
telework would be an effective reasonable accommodation.

Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’
arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the
evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.

0120182110

3
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety
(90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must
name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result
in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider
and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
0120182110

4
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

October 18, 2018
Date