Concordia D. Tindal, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 8, 2009
0120071135 (E.E.O.C. May. 8, 2009)

0120071135

05-08-2009

Concordia D. Tindal, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Concordia D. Tindal,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120071135

Hearing No. 550-06-00182X

Agency No. 1F-955-0006-06

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated November

14, 2006, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint.

In her complaint, complainant alleged discrimination based on race

(Filipino), disability (eyes), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity

when on January 6, 2006, she was denied reasonable accommodation and

was subjected to Absent Without Leave (AWOL) actions.

Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant

requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On October

27, 2006, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no

discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.

The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a

hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material

fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the

summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment

is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive

legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists

no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,

a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine

whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of

the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and

all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.

Id. at 255. 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.

The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,

as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ

determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a

prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged action. During the relevant

time period at issue, complainant was employed as a group leader custodian

for the agency. In 2004, prior to the alleged incidents, complainant

was diagnosed with advanced tear deficiency (dry eyes) requiring her to

administer eye drops in the morning before coming to work. Complainant

experienced reduced visual clarity for 1 1/2 hours after taking her

eye drops. The agency stated that complainant was previously approved

FMLA for the first two hours of her tour until January 2006, at which

time the agency requested a new certification for her continuing FMLA,

but she failed to provide such documentation.

Specifically, complainant's supervisor stated that on February 6, 2006, he

was instructed by the FMLA Coordinator not to approve complainant's FMLA

leave anymore without proper documentation, but he continued to approve

such "pending documentation." The supervisor placed complainant on

AWOL for her consistently coming to work late, i.e., up to 2 hours late,

during the relevant time period at issue. The supervisor indicated that

on April 19, 2006, he told complainant that he could no longer approve

her FMLA leave requests without providing him with the requested medical

documentation. In May 2006, he referred complainant to the District

Reasonable Accommodation Committee, but she refused to attend a meeting.

The supervisor also offered to delay complainant's tour of duty to begin

at 9:30 am to accommodate her eye condition, but she refused to accept

such a schedule.

The AJ found, and we agree, that the agency presented legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for its actions and that complainant failed

to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the

alleged action. Assuming (without deciding) that complainant was an

individual with a disability, the Commission finds that complainant

failed to show that she was denied a reasonable accommodation or that

the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. Complainant does

not allege that she was required to perform duties beyond her medical

restrictions.

Accordingly, the agency's final action is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0408)

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.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other

security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within

the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with

the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.

Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time

limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

5/8/09

__________________

Date

2

0120071135

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013