Shae M.,1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 29, 20180120171808 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 29, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Shae M.,1 Complainant, v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency. Appeal No. 0120171808 Hearing No. 520-2014-00460X Agency No. IRS130409F DECISION On April 25, 2017, 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 March 29, 2017, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Correspondence Examination Technician, GS-0503-07 at the Agency’s Brookhaven Campus in Holtsville, New York. On May 23, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (traumatic brain injury and chronic intractable headaches) when it continually denied her a reasonable accommodation since November 2012. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of 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. 0120171808 2 investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. On April 14, 2015, the Agency filed a motion for a decision without a hearing. When Complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on March 27, 2017. In issuing the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency properly engaged in the interactive process by providing Complainant with several accommodations such as an ergonomic chair, a guard to block inhospitable lighting, and a change of cubicles. While the AJ acknowledged that the Agency did not grant Complainant’s request to work at home, the AJ nevertheless determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying the request. The AJ concluded that the record, even when viewed most favorably to Complainant, did not support an inference of discrimination. On March 29, 2017, the Agency issued a final order, which adopted the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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 determined 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 weight the evidence, but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the nonmoving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the nonmoving 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 nonmoving 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. Under the Commission's regulations, a federal agency may not discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability and is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the Agency can show that reasonable accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o), (p). To establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. 0120171808 3 §1630.2(g); (2) she is a ““qualified” individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002) (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation). An individual with a disability is “qualified” if he or she satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the employment position that the individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “Essential functions” are the fundamental job duties of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. Id. § 1630.2(n). We will assume for the purposes of this decision, without deciding, that Complainant is disabled. The record reflects that the Agency engaged in an interactive process with Complainant to process her reasonable accommodation request. Specifically, after Complainant made her November 22, 2012 request, the Agency participated in an ongoing dialogue between January 2013 and December 2013, to find an appropriate accommodation.2 During this period, the Agency provided Complainant with a cubicle shield to address her light sensitivity and offered to move her work station to a more isolated area to reduce noise exposure.3 The Agency, however, did not grant Complainant’s requested accommodation to work from home. Complainant’s position required her to handle sensitive paper records containing personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and tax returns. Additionally, the record reflects that Complainant could only access internal Agency systems from the office. As these in-office duties were essential to Complainant’s position, we find that the Agency had no obligation to grant Complainant’s request to work from home. While a qualified individual with a disability is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, he or she is not necessarily entitled to the accommodation of choice. See Complainant v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01931005 (February 17, 1994). We note that similarly situated technicians at the Brookhaven Campus were required to work in the office. We find that the Agency properly engaged in the reassignment process. As Complainant was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, the Agency requested her permission to begin the process to locate a vacant position that would have matched her grade level, skill sets, accomplishments, and geographical limitations. Complainant voluntarily agreed to participate in 2 Although the record reflects that Complainant requested an accommodation in May 2011 (ergonomic chair), Complainant asserted during the investigation that the chair was for her back injury, not her traumatic brain injury. 3 The record reflects that the Agency granted Complainant’s request to take leave in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act, offered her an additional 272 hours of leave without pay, and advanced her 180 hours of sick leave. By the time of her November 2012 request, Complainant exhausted her leave balance. 0120171808 4 the reassignment process. Despite the Agency’s best efforts to locate a vacant position throughout the Internal Revenue Service and the entire Department of Treasury, there were no suitable positions available for her. To the extent that Complainant is also claiming the denial of the accommodation created a hostile work environment, we note that this is not part of the accepted claim. Even if it is considered to be part of the complaint, we find no evidence that the Agency’s actions during the interactive process were discriminatory or created a hostile work environment. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding no discrimination. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0617) 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in 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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party. 0120171808 5 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 (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 November 29, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation