0120072413
10-08-2009
Nulma A. Wallace, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Nulma A. Wallace,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072413
Hearing No. 120-2005-00472X
Agency Nos. 4K-230-0116-03, 4K-230-0191-04
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action finding no
discrimination with regard to her complaints of unlawful discrimination.
During the relevant time, complainant worked as a City Carrier, PS-6, at
the agency's Hampton Post Office in Hampton, Virginia. The agency defined
complainant's complaints as alleging discrimination based on disability
(back and hip condition) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1)
on February 15, 2003, complainant observed her coworker being accommodated
in a light duty assignment that she could have performed but was denied;
(2) from December 2002, through September 2003, the agency refused to
provide complainant a light duty assignment; and (3) on March 26, 2004,
complainant's request for reasonable accommodation was denied.
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaints, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On February
6, 2007, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding
no discrimination. It appears that the AJ's decision effectively became
the agency's final action, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(i).
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.
Despite complainant's contentions on appeal, the Commission finds that
grant of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of
material fact exists. In this case, 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 denial of reasonable accommodations.
Specifically, complainant's Postmaster stated that on November 8, 2002,
complainant requested a temporary light duty assignment but she denied
the request because all allocated assignments were filled at that time.
However, on November 22, 2002, her request for light duty was granted.
The Postmaster indicated that on December 13, 2002, and thereafter, she
asked complainant for a medical documentation supporting her alleged
disability on a number of occasions but complainant failed to provide
the requested documentation. Specifically, the Postmaster stated that
complainant failed to provide complete medical documentation addressing
the permanency of her injury. On appeal, complainant does not dispute the
foregoing statements. Rather, complainant contends that she filed OWCP
claims and her attorney previously submitted his letter dated February
24, 2004, concerning her accommodation issue.
The Postmaster noted that the employees cited by complainant in the
complaint received modified duty assignment due to their on-the-job
injuries. Complainant, however, was not determined to have an on-the-job
injury during the relevant time period at issue and her OWCP claim was
denied as well. On appeal, complainant notes that her OWCP claim was
later accepted on November 17, 2004, and as a result, she received a
modified assignment on December 20, 2004.
The Postmaster also indicated that during the relevant time period,
complainant was not able to perform the duties of her position. Thus,
stated the Postmaster, she contacted the Local District Reasonable
Accommodation Committee (DRAC) to seek help in finding suitable work for
complainant. However, the DRAC also determined that there was no work
available within complainant's medical restrictions. Complainant admitted
in the February 24, 2004 letter that she was not able to do heavy lifting
of her position and would need assistance. Complainant had a lifting
restriction of 25-30 pounds and her position required lifting up to 70
pounds on a regular basis.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency's Human Resources Manager
refused to work with her attorney concerning her reasonable accommodation
request addressed in the attorney's February 24, 2004 letter. The Manager
acknowledged that she received the February 24, 2004 letter after the
DRAC denied complainant's accommodation request on February 9, 2004.
The Manager indicated that since she was not an attorney, she referred
the letter to the Postal Service attorney who in turn responded in
writing to complainant's attorney on April 8, 2004.
Upon review, the Commission finds summary judgment was appropriate
in the present case as there were no genuine issues of material fact.
Despite complainant's contention to the contrary, we find the record was
adequately developed. The Commission agrees with the AJ that complainant
failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
the alleged actions. Assuming (without deciding) that complainant was an
individual with a disability, the Commission finds that complainant failed
to show that she was denied a reasonable accommodation or that any agency
actions were motivated by discrimination. There is no indication that
complainant provided any medical documentation to support her disability
during the relevant time period at issue. Complainant also failed to show
that there was any vacant funded position available that met her medical
restrictions at the relevant time. Complainant does not allege that
she was required to perform her duties beyond her medical restrictions.
Accordingly, the agency's final action is AFFIRMED.
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
10/8/09
__________________
Date
2
0120072413
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013