Fredda J.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 29, 2018

0120161831 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2018)

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

Fredda J.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120161831

Hearing No. 510-2016-00087X

Agency No. 4G-330-0173-15

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated April 13, 2016, finding no discrimination
with regard to her complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Window Clerk, PS-6, at Flagler (Brickell) Station in Miami, Florida. On August 3, 2015,
Complainant filed her complaint alleging discrimination based on age (over 40), disability (back
pain, ankle sprain), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on March 31, 2015, and

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.
0120161831

2
thereafter, management denied her request for reasonable accommodation in the form of light
duty, took her off the clock, and escorted her off the premises.2

After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) but later withdrew the request. The Agency then issued its
final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
action, which Complainant failed to rebut.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of
review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal
determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents,
statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the
parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and
its interpretation of the law").

After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the alleged incidents. At the relevant time, Complainant was a Window Clerk, P-6 at
the Agency’s Flagler (Brickell) Postal Station. Complainant indicated that at the relevant time,
she had back and ankle pain which was diagnosed on January 26, 2015, and on March 31, 2015,
and she could not lift anything over 15 pounds and could not stand for a long time.

Complainant’s supervisor (S1) indicated that on March 31, 2015, Complainant gave him a letter
dated March 30, 2015, from her medical provider with work restrictions for one month from the
date of the letter. S1 stated that he previously did not know about Complainant’s disability. S1
indicated that as a Window Clerk, Complainant’s duties included selling postage, shipping
packages, boxing mail, dispatching mail, lifting up to 50-70 pounds, bending, stopping, sitting,
and walking. According to her medical provider’s letter, Complainant could not lift more than
15 pounds and she would need to take breaks of 10 minutes when her body could not handle the
stress. The medical provider also recommended no desk type job for Complainant because
sitting for long periods of time may exacerbate her condition.

On March 31, 2015, stated S1, after Complainant submitted her March 30, 2015 doctor’s letter,
S1, Health and Resources (HR) Manager, and Complainant were on a speaker phone and when

2 Complainant also alleged that she was denied access to the grievance process in that her
grievance was denied. On August 18, 2015, the Agency dismissed this claim for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) as it constituted a collateral attack on another
forum’s proceeding. We find the Agency’s dismissal of this claim proper.
0120161831

3
the HR Manager explained to Complainant about a light duty package and requested medical
documentation, Complainant became very agitated and started yelling at the HR Manager and
got louder and louder until Complainant left the room. S1 indicated that the HR Manager
instructed him to send Complainant home until she provided him with the requested medical
documentation. Complainant was asked to leave because she could not perform the core
requirements of her job and she was instructed to bring the requested medical documentation.
Complainant then started yelling at S1 and told S1 she was not leaving because “You people
messed up my paperwork.” As Complainant continued to “sit in a chair in a cubicle and sleep,
text, talk on the phone, performing no work for long periods of time,” S1 consulted with the
Labor Relations Manager who advised S1 to call the police to have Complainant removed from
the premises. Thus, stated S1, Complainant was taken off the clock and escorted off the
premises.

We note that on August 3, 2015, Complainant subsequently submitted her updated medical
documentation indicating that she could now lift 50 pounds and that she could return to work.
Based on this information, the Agency awarded her a bid at Kendall Carrier Annex as a SSDA.

Assuming (without deciding) that Complainant was an individual with a disability, we find that
Complainant failed to show that she was denied a reasonable accommodation or that any Agency
actions were motivated by discrimination. Complainant does not allege that she was required to
perform duties beyond her medical restrictions. The record clearly indicates that at the relevant
time, Complainant was not able to perform the essential functions of her Window Clerk position
duties (with or without accommodation) due to her medical restrictions, including 15 pounds
lifting and 10 minute breaks throughout the day. We also find that Complainant failed to show
that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar
circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant has failed to show that the
Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination as she alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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.
0120161831

4
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.

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.

0120161831

5
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

June 29, 2018
Date