0120102956
11-23-2011
Sonya A. Allen, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Sonya A. Allen,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120102956
Agency No. 1G-753-0034-10
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the Agency's Final
Decision dated April 30, 2010, dismissing her complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and
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 Decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant
worked as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Dallas Processing
and Distribution Center facility in Dallas, Texas. On April 12, 2010,
Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination on the bases of sex and disability when:
On March 7, 2010 and March 8, 2010, Complainant was sent home and told
there was no work available within her medical restrictions.
The Agency determined that Complainant's claim of disability
discrimination falls within the pending class action, McConnell,
et al. v. U.S. Postal Service, Agency Case No. 4B-140-0062-06. Thus,
the Agency determined Complainant's claim of disability discrimination
would be subsumed in the McConnell, et al. complaint.
In 2004, the Agency began the development of the National Reassessment
Process (NRP), an effort to “standardize” the procedure used to
assign work to injured-on-duty employees. In the class complaint,
McConnell claims that the Agency failed to engage in the interactive
process during the NRP in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Further,
McConnell claims the Agency allegedly failed to reasonably accommodate
class members during and after the process.
On May 30, 2008, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) granted class
certification in McConnell, et al. v. U.S. Postal Service, which defined
the class as all permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty
employees at the Agency who have been subjected to the NRP from May 5,
2006, to the present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
The AJ defined the McConnell claims into the following broader complaint:
(1) The NRP fails to provide a reasonable accommodation (including
allegations that the NRP “targets” disabled employees, fails to
include an interactive process, and improperly withdraws existing
accommodation); (2) The NRP creates a hostile work environment; (3)
The NRP wrongfully discloses medical information; and (4) The NRP has an
adverse impact on disabled employees. The Agency declined to implement
the decision and appealed the matter to the Commission. The Commission
agreed with the AJ's definition of the class and the McConnell claims,
as stated above. Accordingly, the Commission reversed the Agency's
final order rejecting the AJ's certification of the class. McConnell, et
al. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080054 (January 14, 2010).
In her complaint, Complainant states that she has not worked on the
floor as a Mail Processing Clerk since the date of her injury. Rather,
Complainant explains that she has worked full-time as a Union Steward,
which work is within her medical restrictions. EEO Complaint of
Discrimination within the Postal Service (Complaint), April 12, 2010,
attachment; Record on Appeal (ROA) at 22.
In its Final Decision, the Agency states that Complainant's complaint
based on disability was properly placed in abeyance pending the McConnell
class complaint. Moreover, the Agency argues that parallel processing of
an individual complaint and a class complaint arising out of the exact
same facts, would not serve the principle of judicial economy. Rather,
the Agency states it would result in unnecessary expenditure of Agency
resources and would potentially subject the Agency to conflicting
decisions and duplicative liability. The Agency notes that Complainant’s
complaint, insofar as it is based on sex, is being processed as an
individual complaint. Agency Decision, April 30, 2010, at 1, footnote.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission notes that it has previously held that a complainant
may appeal an agency decision to hold an individual complaint in
abeyance during the processing of a related class complaint. See Roos
v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05920101 (February 13, 1992).
In addition, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive-110,
Chapter 8, §III(C) (November 9, 1999) provides, in relevant part,
that “an individual complaint that is filed before or after the class
complaint is filed and that comes within the definition of the class
claim(s), will not be dismissed but will be subsumed within the class
complaint.”
Upon review, we find that the Agency correctly held Complainant's claim
of disability discrimination in abeyance. Complainant acknowledges that
she was injured on the job in 2005 and had the same medical limitations in
2005 that he had at the time of the present complaint. Id. The record
reveals that on March 8, 2010, Complainant received an Employee Leave
Information Letter, Complete Day indicating that pursuant to the NRP it
was determined there were not enough available necessary tasks within
Complainant's medical restrictions to complete a full day of work.
ROA at 44. We find Complainant’s claim of disability discrimination
is properly subsumed within the McConnell, et al. class action.
We also find that the Agency properly severed Complainant's claim of sex
discrimination and indicated that claim was being processed separately
under case number 1G-753-0056-10. That claim does not fall within the
scope of McConnell, et. al. and therefore is appropriately addressed
separately. ROA at 48, 49.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision to hold Complainant's claim
of disability discrimination in abeyance and process the claim of sex
discrimination separately is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
November 23, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120102956
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120102956