0120112595
01-13-2012
Gary L. Logan, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Gary L. Logan,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112595
Hearing No. 570-2009-00373X
Agency No. 4K-220-0119-06
DECISION
On April 21, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s April
14, 2011, final order concerning his 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. The Commission deems the appeal timely and
accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as
a Part-Time Flexible Letter Carrier at the Agency’s facility in Vienna,
Virginia. On December 26, 2006, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of his
disability (gout, bone spurs, foot arthralgia) when from July 7, 2006,
management disregarded his disabilities and medical documentation by:
(1) delaying providing him with a limited duty job offer; and (2)
assigning him work outside his medical restrictions.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
timely requested a hearing. The AJ found that, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without
a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material
fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on March
30, 2011, finding no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a
final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. On appeal,
Complainant reiterates his contention that the Agency subjected him to
unlawful disability discrimination and ignored his medical restrictions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD 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). 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 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material”
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can
only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not appropriate
for an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. In the context of an
administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without
a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately
developed for summary disposition. Petty v. Defense Security Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a
decision without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of
material fact exists. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination
against qualified disabled individuals. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630. In order
to establish that Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) he is an individual with a disability,
as defined by 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified individual
with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency
failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See Enforcement Guidance:
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, EEOC No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002) (“Enforcement
Guidance”). Under the Commission’s regulations, an Agency is
required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and
mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless
the Agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See
29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2 (o) and (p).
Upon review of the entire record in this case, the Commission concurs
with the AJ’s determination that assuming, arguendo, Complainant is
an individual with a disability, he has not established that the Agency
failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act. The record reflects that after being cleared for
work in early July 2006, Complainant requested light-duty, on July 28,
2006, with the restriction of no more than two hours of walking per day.
Report of Investigation (R.O.I.), Affidavit A, 23. Management officials
state that there was no light-duty work available at that time that
was commensurate with Complainant’s medical restrictions and he was,
therefore, provided with sick leave. Id. at Affidavit B; C. Complainant
subsequently filed a claim for an on-the-job injury through the Office
of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), and by letter dated July
24, 2006, OWCP informed Complainant that the medical documentation
submitted by him was insufficient to determine whether he was eligible
for benefits. Id at Exhibit 6. On August 29, 2006, Complainant’s claim
was accepted and he was provided with compensation through OWCP. Id. at
Exhibit 9, 10, 12-14. Complainant was then offered a limited duty job
assignment on October 5, 2006, which he accepted. Id. at Exhibit 11.
As such, we find that the record shows that once Complainant provided the
Agency with the required medical documentation to support his request,
the Agency provided him work within his medical restrictions.
With respect to Complainant’s contentions that on several occasions
management officials assigned him work outside his medical restriction,
we concur with the AJ’s determination that Complainant failed to
proffer any evidence to support this claim. Specifically, the record
shows that Complainant’s limited duty position was fully commensurate
with his documented medical restrictions and that Complainant at no time
informed management that the duties assigned to him were outside his
restrictions. Supervisor, Customer Service Declaration dated October 22,
2007; Exhibits 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11. Further, to the extent that Complainant
is alleging that the Agency violated his restrictions by requiring him
to stand for long periods, we note that Complainant provided no medical
documentation to show that he was restricted from standing. R.O.I.,
Affidavit A. Accordingly, we find that the Agency satisfied its
obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.
CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to
Complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further
find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb
the AJ’s decision and the Agency’s final order is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
January 13, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120112595
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120112595