01971505
05-18-2000
Lang Thi Tran, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Lang Thi Tran v. United States Postal Service
01971505
May 18, 2000
Lang Thi Tran, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01971505
v. ) Agency No. 1-H-336-1048-95
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On November 30, 1996, Lang Thi Tran (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission) from a final decision of the agency concerning her
complaint of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq; the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq;
and �501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791
et seq.<1> The final agency decision was received by complainant on
November 2, 1996. Accordingly, the appeal is timely filed, and is
accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be
codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).
The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that she was discriminated against on the bases of her
race (Asian), sex (female), national origin (Vietnamese), age (53), and
disability (Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) when she was instructed to report
to her regular job assignment in August 1995.<2>
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in September 1992, raising
the above-referenced allegation of discrimination. The agency
accepted complainant's complaint for processing, and conducted an
investigation. Thereafter, the agency provided complainant with a copy
of the investigative report, and notified her of her right to either
an administrative hearing or a final agency decision in the matter.
Complainant failed to timely respond to the notice, and the agency issued
a final decision dated October 30, 1996, finding that complainant had
not been subjected to discrimination. It is from this decision that
complainant now appeals.
A review of the record reveals that complainant was employed as a
Distribution Clerk, but had been working in a light duty assignment
since December 1994 because of her medical condition. Complainant's
doctor had restricted her from performing repetitive movement with both
hands, raising her hands above her shoulders, and lifting over 2 pounds.
The Manager of Distribution Operations (Manager) stated that in August
1995, she asked complainant if she could riffle mail in her regular
area because of a reduced volume of mail on the light duty table.<3>
The Manager indicated that riffling mail was within complainant's
medical restrictions, and that the only difference between performing
the task on the light duty table and in complainant's regular area was
that complainant would be required to stand, an activity which was not
medically restricted. The Manager stated that complainant was not
required to perform her regular duties, only to perform a function
which was within her restrictions in her regular area. The Manager
noted that complainant agreed to try the assignment, and was told to
inform a supervisor if she had any problems. The Manager asserted that
complainant was not required to reach above her shoulders. The Manager
noted that she was merely trying to find a more productive assignment
for complainant within her restrictions. After complainant complained
of having pain, the Manager stated that she was immediately reassigned
to the light duty table and answering the telephone.
Complainant asserted that the Manager told her she was being reassigned
because of the amount of time she had been on light duty. Complainant
stated that she reported to her regular area on August 10, 1995, and
worked on foreign and Canadian mail. Complainant noted that, on August
11, 1995, she was asked by a supervisor to label trays for dispatch.
Complainant stated that while she initially believed she would be able to
perform the task, she felt numbness and pain after labeling two stacks.
Complainant acknowledged that, after telling the supervisor, she was
given another assignment. Complainant noted that, nevertheless, she
was experiencing pain when she left the facility. Complainant stated
that none of the other employees on light duty were asked to return to
their regular duties.
Complainant's complaint presents the issue of whether the agency subjected
her to disparate treatment on the bases of her race, sex, national origin,
and age. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), provides
an analytical framework for proving employment discrimination in cases in
which disparate treatment is alleged. First, complainant must establish
a prima facie case by presenting enough evidence to raise an inference
of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802. The agency
may rebut complainant's prima facie case by articulating legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and if the agency does so,
complainant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
agency's reasons are a pretext for discrimination. Id.
The Commission notes that the McDonnell Douglas analysis need not
be adhered to in all cases. In appropriate circumstances, when the
agency has established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
employment decision, the trier of fact may dispense with the prima
facie inquiry and proceed to the ultimate stage of the analysis,
that is, whether the complainant has proven by preponderant evidence
that the agency's explanations were a pretext for actions motivated
by prohibited discriminatory animus. See United States Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983).<4>
The agency stated that while complainant was asked to return to her
regular area, she was given an assignment within her restrictions.
Specifically, the agency noted that the only difference between the
work complainant had been performing and riffling mail in her regular
area was the requirement to stand, an activity for which complainant
had no limitations. Complainant stated that other employees were
not assigned to work in their regular areas. The record, however,
shows that those employees worked in different areas and positions
than complainant prior to their injuries. Further, at least one of
the employees was restricted from standing. Complainant has presented
insufficient evidence to show that the action in question resulted from
her race, sex, national origin, or age. Therefore, the Commission finds
that complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that she was subjected to discrimination on those bases.
With regard to complainant's allegation of disability discrimination,
she must first show that she is a qualified individual with a disability.
See Prewitt v. USPS, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981). A disabled individual
is one who: 1. has an impairment which substantially limits one or more
major life activities; 2. has a record of such an impairment; or 3. is
regarded as having such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(g).<5> Major
life activities include caring for one's self, performing manual tasks,
walking, seeing, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(i).
In the case at hand, the record shows that complainant was diagnosed with
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which substantially limits her ability to lift.
Specifically, complainant had been restricted from lifting over 2
pounds since December 1994. Further, the agency did not dispute that
complainant had been successfully performing her light duty assignment
since December 1994. Thus, we find that complainant is a qualified
individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.
Nevertheless, the record does not support a finding of discrimination in
this case. Complainant does not dispute that she was provided reasonable
accommodation prior to August 10, 1995. Further, the agency stated
that the assignment which complainant was given at that time was within
her medical restrictions. The Manager averred that the only difference
between complainant's assignment on the light duty table and that in her
regular area was the requirement that she stand. The record shows that
complainant was not restricted in standing. The Commission also notes
that when complainant told the supervisor that she was experiencing pain
working in her regular area, she was reassigned to the light duty table
and answering the telephone. Complainant does not contend that the
agency has required her to work in her regular area or perform duties
outside of her restrictions since the time of the incident at issue.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the agency met its obligation to
provide complainant with reasonable accommodation.
CONCLUSION
Based upon a review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons, it is
the decision of the Commission to affirm the agency's final decision of
no discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, age and disability.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:
_05-18-00 ___________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________ __________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2Complainant initially claimed that the action in question was also the
result of reprisal. The agency, however, dismissed reprisal as a basis
for the complaint, and provided complainant with appeal rights to the
Commission. There is no evidence that complainant appealed the dismissal,
and, as such, the claim of reprisal will not be addressed herein.
3Riffling mail consisted of taking mail from a tray, examining it,
and placing it in an empty tray or cart.
4The Commission notes that while the agency stated, in part, that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not
show that she was treated differently than similarly situated employees,
complainant must only present evidence which, if unrebutted, would support
an inference that the agency's actions resulted from discrimination.
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996);
Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp.,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002, n. 4 (September 18, 1996).
5The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website: www.eeoc.gov.