01a55815
08-24-2006
Mary K. Angles, Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Mary K. Angles,
Complainant,
v.
Mike Johanns,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A55815
Hearing No. 110-2005-00147X-TGH
Agency No. 030605
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from an agency's final action finding no
discrimination with regard to her complaint. In her complaint, dated
August 5, 2003, complainant, a Program Technician, CO-7/7, at the agency's
Farmer Service Agency in Calhoun, Georgia, alleged discrimination based on
disability (severe asthma) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
(1) on March 11, 2003, she was denied reasonable accommodation based on
her disability for an out-of-town assignment; (2) on March 12, 2003,
she was directed to comply with a directive concerning an out-of-town
assignment or risk possible disciplinary action; (3) on April 12, 2003,
management requested her to provide them detailed information concerning
her medical history; and (4) in April 2003, her medical records were
discussed without her permission. The record indicates that at the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued his decision, without a
hearing, finding no discrimination, which effectively became the agency's
final action pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(i).1 Complainant submits
no argument on appeal.
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. If a case
can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
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 actions. With regard to
the alleged detail assignment, the Supervisory Agricultural District
Director initially asked complainant to work on the detail during the
week of March 17, 2003, in the Commerce Farm Loan Office to help out.
The District Director stated that the Commerce Office was shorthanded
during the height of the loan season with farmers needing operating
loans to plan their crops. In response, complainant told him that
it was inadvisable for her to do so due to her medical condition and
that her doctor advised her against traveling alone or staying alone
in strange places because her asthma attacks could result in complete
respiratory failure. On the following day, the District Director
issued complainant a written instruction about the detail. In response,
complainant provided him with a one paragraph letter from her doctor about
her medical condition. Subsequently, the agency investigated the matter
and the District Director withdrew the request for complainant's detail.
The District Director noted that after this incident, he had not detailed
complainant to the Commerce Office.
With regard to complainant's medical documentation, the District Director
stated that after he was notified of complainant's medical conditions
that she could not accept the one-week detail assignment, described above,
because of her asthma, he, the Administrative Officer (his staff advisor),
and the Employee Relations Specialist formulated a certified letter to
her asking her to provide detailed medical documentation to ascertain her
present condition and limitations in her work and travel. The District
Director stated that the one paragraph letter, complainant previously
submitted, did not provide sufficient information in determining her
ability to perform her job duties. The District Director also stated that
the purpose of this request was to determine if she could perform the full
duties of her position. Complainant subsequently submitted the requested
medical documentation on May 28, 2003. The Administrative Officer stated
that she faxed this documentation to the Employee Relations Specialist
under the normal procedure for personnel issues. The agency stated that
the Employee Relations Specialist had been assigned to provide assistance
to the Calhoun office concerning personnel matters. The Employee
Relations Specialist stated that the agency complied with 31-PM Handbook
(the agency's reasonable accommodation handbook) by requesting medical
documentation from complainant regarding accommodations.
After a review of the record, the Commission does not find that
complainant has been denied a reasonable accommodation. Thus, the
Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the detail request which was subsequently withdrawn and for
requesting medical documentation from complainant. The Commission also
finds that complainant failed to provide any evidence that the articulated
reasons were pretextual or that the agency actions were motivated by
discrimination. It is noted that we do not address in this decision
whether complainant is a disabled individual under the Rehabilitation
Act. Furthermore, there is no indication that complainant was denied
a reasonable accommodation or that she was made to work outside of her
medical limitations.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 24, 2006
__________________
Date
1 The agency indicated that it did not issue a final decision.
??
??
??
??
2
01A55815
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036