[Redacted], Leora R., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2020000878 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Leora R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020000878 Agency No. 4J-606-0023-19 DECISION On October 18, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s September 16, 2019 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Morgan Park Station in Chicago, Illinois. On March 1, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint. Therein, Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her based on disability (lumbar and right knee sprain) and in reprisal for protected EEO activity when, on October 31, 2018, management tried to make Complainant work beyond her medical restrictions and then sent her home. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2020000878 2 After its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. The instant appeal followed. Complainant does not submit any statements or briefs on appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A federal agency must make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified employee with a disability unless the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue burden on the operation of its program. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(c)(1). A qualified employee with a disability is one who can perform the essential functions of the position in question with or without reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(6). The record reflects that Complainant’s regular City Carrier position required delivery and collection of mail by foot or vehicle, under varying road conditions. It further required carrying mail weighing up to 35 pounds in satchels or using other equipment. Moreover, the position requires the loading and unloading of mail in containers weighing up to seventy pounds. During the period in question, as a result of her back and knee conditions, Complainant was medically limited to one hour per day of standing, walking or lifting up to ten pounds. She also had a two-hour limit of reaching above her shoulder. As a consequence, the Agency provided Complainant was provided a modified work assignment which it asserted was consistent with her limitations. Complainant does not dispute that the modified assignment, at least on paper, effectively accommodated her medical conditions. As such, we conclude that through the modified assignment, the Agency provided Complainant with reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. However, Complainant alleges that she was ordered to work outside of her modified assignment (Assignment #2499) on October 31, 2018, and then was sent home. Her supervisor (“S1”), however, testified that on the date in question Complainant was directed to perform work within her 2499 assignment and medical restrictions, and that she refused that work. S1 stated that Complainant’s refusal was the motivation for sending her home on that date. The record includes a leave slip from Complainant, requesting leave without pay (LWOP) for a number of hours on October 31, 2018. The slip has a notation that it was “disapproved” by S1 with the reason given as “work available within your restriction[s] refused.” S1 further testified that Complainant wanted to leave early because it was Halloween and this whole matter had nothing to do with her medical restrictions. Complainant testified that she wrote a handwritten note that stated, in part, that “management wanted to exceed [her] medical restrictions.” 2020000878 3 In sum, Complainant and S1 had conflicting testimony regarding whether Complainant was asked to exceed her medical restrictions or whether she refused work within her limited duty assignment. According to her 2499 limited duty assignment, Complainant was restricted to 2-3 hours of casing an open route, 1 hour of delivering express mail/take out mail to carriers, 1-3 hours assorting mail, and 1-3 hours assisting with lobby directing customers. Complainant stated that on October 31, 2018: After casing and tying out Route 38, she was asked to case on Route 26 by S2. Complainant informed S2 [her second-line supervisor] that she had already exceeded her restrictions and that casing and tying down another route would put Complainant in pain. S2 then called S1 over, and S1 instructed Complainant to go home. S1 then filled out a 3971 and wrote that there was work within Complainant’s restrictions, but Complainant refused the work. Complainant stated that she then asked S1 what that work was, and S1 replied that the work was casing another route. Complainant stated that she again tried to explain, but S1 told her to go home. The record, however, contains testimony from the supervisors that Complainant had been informed that she could continue casing while being seated. The record reflects further that management offered to make arrangements for another employee to “tie down” Complainant’s route, so that she would not have to stand, or to reach above her shoulder, which would have exceeded her medical restrictions. After careful review of the record, we conclude Complainant has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was directed to perform work outside of her limited duty assignment/medical restrictions and improperly sent home on October 31, 2018. As such, Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Agency failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities or took the disputed actions based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding of no discrimination. 2020000878 4 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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). 2020000878 5 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations June 8, 2021 Date