[Redacted], Twanna C., 1 Complainant,v.Debra A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior (National Park Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 23, 2022

Appeal No. 2021001322 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 23, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Twanna C.,1 Complainant, v. Debra A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior (National Park Service), Agency. Appeal No. 2021001322 Hearing No. 570-2019-00331X Agency No. NPS-18-0216 DECISION On December 15, 2020, 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 November 16, 2020 final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Support Service Specialist - Property Manager, at the Agency’s Washington area local and field offices in Washington, D.C. On March 6, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability (osteoarthritis), age (56), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. In or around November 16, 2017, and continuing to her retirement in May 2019, Agency management denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation to 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. 2021001322 2 telework as a medical accommodation and instructed her to arrange to return to work.2 2. From June 2016 to her retirement, Agency management assigned Complainant in a non-pay/leave without pay (LWOP) status that resulted in financial hardship for her. 3. In or around May 2017, Agency management denied Complainant a reassignment to a vacant position that provided telework capability. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 2 The AJ noted that during the Initial Teleconference, Complainant stated that she retired in May 2019. Therefore, in the Case Management Order the AJ revised the Issues and Claims for Adjudication to reflect her retirement. Complainant further stated that she was neither alleging that she was forced to retire nor was she making any allegations arising from the Agency’s issuance of a notice of removal prior to her retirement. 2021001322 3 In her decision, the AJ found that Complainant’s claims 1 and 2 were precluded by res judicata, as those claims had been both previously raised in an earlier EEO complaint (filed on August 30, 2016) and adjudicated under the same applicable laws. In that complaint, the Agency issued a final decision, and Complainant failed to appeal that determination. The AJ therefore determined that Complainant cannot now raise those two same issues. The AJ nevertheless determined that even if claims preclusion had not been established, the Agency action in these claims was not motivated by discriminatory animus. Moreover, the AJ found the record reflects that Complainant’s medical documentation did not mandate telework as a reasonable accommodation, and Complainant admitted that telework was not an accommodation recommended by her health care provider. In fact, her health care provider recommended a wheelchair, close access to a restroom, and other forms of accessibility, all of which the Agency offered Complainant. Complainant’s position required her presence to: 1) provide support for the building when individuals needed access; 2) provide support services to employees; and 3) to provide property management services. The AJ properly found that the Agency was not required to eliminate an essential function of the position and had a duty to provide effective accommodations to allow Complainant to perform those functions, which it did. As such, Complainant was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation of her choosing - reassignment to a vacant position that provided telework capability. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 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. 2021001322 4 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). 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. 2021001322 5 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 February 23, 2022 Date