Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 25, 2015

0120122255 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2015)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120122255

Hearing No. 560-2012-00052X

Agency No. 1E-641-0015-11

DECISION
On April 28, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s April 9, 2012, final
decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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., 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

. 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, PS-06, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center facility in Kansas City,
Missouri. On June 16, 2011, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her and subjected her to unlawful harassment on the bases of her race
(Black), disability (carpal tunnel), age (56), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when from February 15, 2011 through March 20, 2011, management denied her light duty.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew
her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant reiterated her contention
0120122255

2
that the Agency subjected her to a hostile environment when management denied her a light
duty assignment.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614

, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the
record and its interpretation of the law”).
Here, assuming, without finding, that Complainant is an individual with a disability, we find
that Complainant failed to show that she was denied a reasonable accommodation or
discriminatorily denied light duty. The record reflects that on February 14, 2011, Complainant
provided medical documentation from her personal physician indicating permanent restrictions
of lifting no more than 10 pounds and no repetitive grasping/gripping with either hand. Upon
receipt of this medical documentation, Complainant’s supervisor informed her that there was
no work available commensurate with her medical restrictions. Additionally, Complainant’s
Manager (M1) stated that this initial request for temporary light duty was disapproved because
it did not provide a time frame for her return to full duty and that the accompanying medical
documentation from her personal physician indicated that her restrictions were permanent.
Additionally, M1 stated that because the submitted documentation indicated that her restrictions
were permanent, temporary light duty was not appropriate. Complainant would have to request
permanent light duty in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement which requires all
requests for permanent light duty be accompanied by a medical certificate from a physician
designated by the installation head and not an employee’s personal physician.

Two days later, on February 16, 2011, Complainant provided revised restrictions from the
same physician specifying no lifting over 17 pounds and no using the mail processing machine
for more than 2 hours. This second document stated that these restrictions were no longer
permanent but were instead in place for only 60 days at which point they would be re-
evaluated. Further, although the documentation indicated that Complainant’s restrictions were
related to an accepted work-related injury claim through the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs (OWCP), the record shows that management was unable to verify this as
Complainant had not updated her claim or filed a notice of recurrence with OWCP.

Accordingly, by letter dated February 24, 2011, management informed Complainant that
because of the significant differences between the restrictions listed in the two medical forms
she had provided, she was scheduled to attend a fitness-for-duty examination for an
independent evaluation of her restrictions on March 10, 2011. The physician who conducted
the fitness-for-duty exam determined that Complainant had no restrictions and could resume
0120122255

3
full duties. However, following Complainant’s updating of her OWCP documentation, by letter
dated March 21, 2011, OWCP notified the Agency that Complainant’s work-related injury
claims had been accepted, at which point the Agency provided her with a limited duty job offer
commensurate with her medical restrictions. We find that Complainant failed to show that she
was denied a reasonable accommodation, given the conflicting medical documentation she
submitted and the lack of any available duties commensurate with restrictions which were, for
a time, considered to be permanent. We also find that Complainant failed to show that the
Agency’s articulated reasons for denying her light duty were a pretext for unlawful
discrimination.

Finally, we note that insofar as Complainant is alleging that the claims addressed above
constitute harassment, the Commission finds that since she failed to refute the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the Agency for its actions, she also failed to establish
that such actions were taken on the basis of her membership in the protected classes.
Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a discriminatory hostile
work environment. See Bennett v. Department of the Navy

, EEOC Request No. 05980746
(September 19, 2000).

CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

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.
0120122255

4

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

Date
February 25, 2015