0120071416
03-31-2009
Melody E. Munford, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area) Agency.
Melody E. Munford,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120071416
Agency No. 1F853003805
DECISION
On January 24, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
December 28, 2006 final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
agency's final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Mail Processing Clerk at the agency's Phoenix Processing and
Distribution Center in Phoenix, Arizona. On August 3, 2005, complainant
filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Caucasian), national origin (French/British,
German/Jewish), sex (female), religion (Church of Latter Day
Saints-Mormon), disability, (not specified), and age (48) when on May 25,
2005, complainant's supervisor (S1) scheduled complainant for a Fitness
for Duty Examination (FFDE), which included a psychiatric examination,
without prior explanation of why one was necessary.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When complainant
did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. �
1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.110(b). The decision concluded that complainant failed to prove
that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
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 EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (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").
Title VII and ADEA Claims
In the absence of direct evidence, a claim of discrimination is examined
under the three-part analysis originally enunciated in McDonnell
Douglas Corporation v. Green. 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to
prevail, she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination
by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. Id. at 802; Furnco Construction
Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the
agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
action. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, complainant bears the
ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of
the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This analysis
also applies to claims brought under the ADEA.
With respect to complainant's claims of race, color, religion, gender,
national origin, and age discrimination, we find the record devoid of
evidence to support a prima facie case. Accordingly, we affirm the FAD
with respect to these claims.
Disability Claim
The Rehabilitation Act places certain limitations on an employer's ability
to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations
of employees absent a showing that the examination is job-related and
consistent with business necessity. 29 C.F..R. �� 1630.13(b), 1630.14(c).
The Rehabilitation Act's restrictions on inquiries and examinations apply
to all employees, not just those with disabilities. See Bruno v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01996301 (January 16, 2002).
Generally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination of an
employee may be "job-related and consistent with business necessity"
when an employer "has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence,
that: (1) an employee's ability to perform essential job functions
will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a
direct threat due to a medical condition." EEOC Enforcement Guidance on
Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pp. 7-8 (July 27, 2000).
It is the burden of the employer to show that its disability-related
inquiries and requests for examination are job-related and consistent
with business necessity. Id. at 7-12.
In this case, we find that the record supports the finding that the
agency's directive for complainant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation
was "job-related and consistent with business necessity" because it
was based upon objective evidence in the form of reports by co-workers
that complainant exhibited signs of hostile, irrational, and threatening
conduct. For example, on May 9, 2005, one of complainant's co-workers
(C1) complained that she was threatened by complainant. C1 provided a
written statement describing complainant as threatening and very vocal."
According to C1, she and two other employees were working on a machine.
After C1 had been up sweeping, unloading the ledges for approximately 45
minutes, she asked complainant if she would mind rotating to console #1
so that C1 could try to keep consoles #2 and #3 running. According to
C1, complainant immediately told her in a very loud and rude manner that
C1 was not her supervisor and that C1 could not tell her what to do or
force her to move or do anything. In order to avoid any confrontation,
C1 moved on to console #1, yet complainant kept on screaming and yelling
at her. C1 states that she ignored complainant while C1 was loading
and running console #1 and #3. After about 15 minutes of hearing
complainant yelling and trying to provoke her, C1 states that she asked
complainant to stop talking to her. C1 stated that she told complainant
she could do whatever she wanted to do and that C1 would work around her.
According to C1, complainant then threatened her by stating, "It's just
too bad that I'm not allowed to have any sharp objects or I would use
it on you." C1 found this statement very upsetting and informed her
supervisor of complainant's outburst. While another co-worker was able
to calm complainant down, C1 notified management that complainant later
gave C1 a "dead stare" and made threatening hand gestures toward her
continuously throughout the day. C1's characterization of the incident
was corroborated by a co-worker. The record further shows that when
complainant was asked by management if she threatened C1 in any way
complainant denied it, saying that she stated only that she was not
allowed to have sharp objects on the work room floor. The record also
shows that complainant admitted to S1 that she had stopped taking her
prescribed medications of Zoloft and Paxil.
S1 testified that she sent complainant for a FFDE based on statements
from her fellow employees and various supervisors. S1 explained, and the
record supports, that complainant has exhibited irrational behavior and
the inability to get along with her peers on numerous occasions in the
past.1 S1 also explained that the incident on May 9, 2005 triggered the
FFDE. According to S1, the FFDE came about due to complainant's hostile
and irrational behavior toward her fellow employees and supervisors.
S1 sent complainant for a FFDE to determine if she posed a direct threat
to safety because of a mental impairment.
We find sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the agency
ordered complainant to undergo a FFDE on the basis of objective evidence
(i.e., reports by co-workers of hostile, irrational, and potentially
threatening behavior on numerous occasions over a two-year period) that
she posed a direct threat because of a mental impairment. See Hightower
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070560 (October 3,
2008); Moss v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01993351 (December
28, 2001).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the final
agency decision.
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
March 31, 2009
Date
1 The record contains several statements from co-workers to management
between May 2003 and May 2005 which document complaints of irrational
and potentially threatening behavior by complainant.
??
??
??
??
2
0120071416
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
6
0120071416
7
0120071416