01a51282
03-06-2006
Maria Munoz, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Maria Munoz v. United States Postal Service
01A51282
03-06-06
.
Maria Munoz,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51282
Agency No. 4G-770-0210-03
Hearing No. 330-2004-00088X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's final order in the above-entitled matter.
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the
basis of disability (knee injury) when: (1) on December 31, 2002, she
was scheduled to work but then told not to come in one hour prior to her
scheduled reporting time; (2) on January 2, 2003, she was required to get
clarification of her medical restrictions and was ordered off the clock;
and (3) on April 25, 2003, she was ordered off the clock.
The record reveals that on December 31, 2002, complainant was scheduled
to work a full overtime tour with a reporting time of 9:00 a.m.
From thirty minutes to an hour before her reporting time, complainant's
supervisor telephoned her and told her that she was no longer needed
to work the tour. On January 2, 2003, complainant returned to duty
and submitted medical documentation from her doctor to her supervisor.
The documentation indicated that complainant could only walk for two
hours intermittently daily. Complainant's supervisor was unsure of
what the restriction meant and contacted the Injury Compensation
Office for clarification of complainant's medical limitations.
The Injury Compensation Office interpreted the documentation to mean
that complainant could walk more than two hours with periodic breaks.
Therefore, complainant's supervisor believed that complainant could
deliver her route. Complainant did not believe that that was the correct
interpretation. Because of the disagreement, complainant's supervisor
told complainant that she needed to provide documentation indicating
that she was incapable of performing her duties as a letter carrier.
Complainant left the station and returned later that afternoon with
documentation restricting her walking only two hours a day. Between
February and April 2003, complainant's status changed from limited
duty to light duty. On April 25, 2003, when no work was available,
complainant was sent home in accordance with agency policy.
Following an investigation, complainant, requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a summary judgment
decision finding no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant
offered no evidence to show that she was a qualified individual with
a disability. The AJ indicated that to the contrary, complainant
asserted in her response that she was not contending that she was
�physically disabled...but...the [agency] refused to acknowledge my
physical impairment that limits her job performance.� The AJ found that
complainant was not a qualified individual with a disability and as such
did not enjoy protection under the Rehabilitation Act.
Complainant did not submit a brief on appeal. The agency requests that
we affirm its final agency action.
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, a decision without
a hearing is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a decision without a
hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately
developed for summary disposition. See Petty v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
Here, we agree with the AJ that the material facts are not in dispute
and this matter is ripe for summary disposition. Moreover, we find that
the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
For the purposes of this discussion, we shall assume arguendo that
complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. We will also
assume that complainant established a prima facie case of disability
discrimination. We now turn to whether the agency articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. We find it has.
Specifically, with respect to issue (1), the agency maintained that
complainant was told not to report for an overtime schedule because
there were no open routes for complainant to work after a number of
employees who had been on sick leave returned to work. Regarding
issue (2), the agency indicated that due to the disagreement over
complainant's restrictions, she was not allowed to work until she brought
in documentation that clarified her work restrictions. With regard to
issue (3), the agency maintained that complainant was put off of the clock
because the station had no light duty work available on that day. The
burden now shifts to complainant to show that the agency's reasons were
pretext for discrimination. We find that complainant failed to provide
any evidence, and the record does not show, that the agency's articulated
nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. We note that
in cases where there is ambiguity regarding medical restrictions, the
agency is allowed to request medical documentation if it is job related
and consistent with business necessity. See Enforcement Guidance on
Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examination of Employees Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), July 2000.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, the Commission finds that the
Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was
appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish
that discrimination occurred. Therefore, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final order.
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
_____03-06-06_____________
Date