01a54456
05-17-2006
Shelia Wheatfall, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Shelia Wheatfall v. United States Postal Service
01A54456
May 17, 2006
.
Shelia Wheatfall,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54456
Agency No. 1G-771-0095-03
Hearing No. 330-2004-00178X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated June 10,
2005, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint. In her
complaint, dated November 17, 2003, complainant, a Part-Time-Flexible
(PTF) Mail Processing Clerk, alleged discrimination based on disability
(back) when on June 8, 2003, after submitting a request for light
duty assignment she was denied equitable work hours. She was only
scheduled to work 16 hours per week or less. Upon completion of the
investigation of the complaint, complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On April 13, 2005, the AJ issued
a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.
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. 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.
Upon review, the Commission finds that the AJ's issuance of a decision
without a hearing was proper in this case since there is no genuine issue
of material fact. The AJ found that the agency did not discriminate
against complainant. The agency, implementing the AJ's findings,
maintains that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established
a prima facie case of discrimination, it has articulated legitimate
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, management
explained that it provided complainant with as much work as was available
within her restrictions.
The record indicates that complainant had been employed by the agency
since August 15, 1998. Since April 9, 1999, complainant had requested
multiple temporary light duty assignments due to an on-the-job injury
which were all granted by the agency. On January 27, 2003, after surgery
for her back, complainant submitted another request for temporary light
duty assignment for the period ending April 27, 2003, which was approved
with her working 5 days a week/4 hours a day, no lifting over 20 lbs,
and limited bending. On April 3, 2003, complainant submitted another
temporary light duty request for the period ending June 30, 2003, which
was again approved by the agency with the same working hours. Complainant
claimed that on August 21, 2003, her supervisor and manager told her
to take 4 days off a week, i.e., allowing her to work 3 days a week/4
hours a day, instead of her previous schedule of working 5 days a week.
The manager of distribution operations stated that she had limited
hours of work to provide complainant given her limitations on lifting
and other restrictions. The tubs in the mail prepping area weighed 20
or more pounds each and, although the mail coming into the flat prepping
operation was sometimes busy, it was not consistent.
Complainant's supervisor stated that since April 9, 1999, the agency
accommodated every light duty assignment request complainant made.
Complainant's supervisor also stated that complainant's original job
entailed 70 lbs. or more lifting, standing and bending during the entire
shift and pushing/pulling 50 lbs. or more. Nevertheless, management
asserted that it accommodated complainant's light duty requests even
though she was not able to perform her duties. The supervisor indicated
that the assignment was based on the needs of the service and PTFs were
only guaranteed four hours per day contractually. Thus, complainant, as
a PTF, was only guaranteed four hours per day which was subjected to the
needs of the service. The supervisor stated that the assignment of hours
and off days given to complainant was based on her medical restrictions.
The record indicates, and complainant does not dispute, that she was
provided as much work as possible within her medical restrictions.
Complainant has not shown that there were more hours which she could
have worked within her medical restrictions. Therefore, we do not
find that complainant has been denied a reasonable accommodation.
Furthermore, complainant has not shown that she has been subjected to
disparate treatment in the scheduling of her work hours. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for the agency actions. Complainant failed
to provide any evidence that the articulated reasons were pretextual
or that any agency action was motivated by discrimination. We do not
address in this decision whether complainant is a disabled individual
under the Rehabilitation Act.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of
all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is hereby
AFFIRMED because the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was
appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish
that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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
May 17, 2006
__________________
Date