Pamala L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 2, 20180120162034 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 2, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Pamala L.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120162034 Agency No. 4B-100-0100-15 DECISION 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 May 13, 2016, final decision 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 decision finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, PS-01, at the Agency’s Lenox Hill South Central Station in New York, New York. On October 25, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of her disability (on-the-job injury) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when beginning in July 2015, management did not allow her to work eight hours.2 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. 2 Complainant raised three additional claims which were dismissed by the Agency. Complainant alleged that she was subjected to unlawful disability and reprisal discrimination when: (2) beginning on December 15, 2014, she was denied her right to a fair process according to the 0120162034 2 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), 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. We note that despite repeated requests by the EEO Investigator, Complainant failed to provide an affidavit in support of her complaint. The information gathered was derived from Complainant’s Pre-Complaint Counseling Form, and other relevant documents in the investigative file. 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. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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”). To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Department of Labor and the Office of Workers’ Compensation; (3) on unspecified dates, management failed to submit or process her injury claims; and (4) on or around July 29, 2015, management did not allow her to hydrate herself during a heat advisory warning. The Agency dismissed claims (2) and (3) as they were deemed to be a collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum. The Agency also dismissed claim (4) for untimely EEO counselor contact. Complainant has not challenged the dismissal of these claims so the Commission will not address them further herein. 0120162034 3 Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of disability and reprisal discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, that Complainant was out of work due to an injury she sustained in December 2014, and that she indicated that she was ready to return to duty in July 2015. Complainant’s managers state that once she provided medical documentation, she was permitted to return to work. We note that despite being given numerous opportunities to clarify her claim and provide specific dates on which she alleges she was prevented from working, she failed to do so. As such, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were pretextual. Significantly, we again note that Complainant failed to provide an affidavit during the investigation of her complaint. Finally, to the extent that Complainant is alleging that the Agency denied her a reasonable accommodation, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless the Agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9. In order to establish she was unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability; (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (October 17, 2002). Here, assuming, without finding, that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability, the record shows that following her return to work in July 2015, management requested medical documentation and clarification of her physical restrictions. The record shows that once Complainant provided the requested medical documentation, a limited duty job offer, commensurate with her restrictions, was offered and accepted. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation or otherwise violated the Rehabilitation Act. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred. 0120162034 4 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. 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. 0120162034 5 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 August 2, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation