01a51248
03-10-2006
Prashant Katyal, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Prashant Katyal v. United States Postal Service
01A51248
03-10-06
.
Prashant Katyal,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51248
Agency No. 1F-957-0030-03
Hearing No. 370-2004-00185X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final
action concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of
unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
action.
The record reveals that complainant, a Mail Processing Clerk at the
agency's Sacramento, California Processing and Distribution Center
(�facility�), filed a formal EEO complaint on April 9, 2003, alleging
that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of disability
(back pain) when: (1) he was removed from duty on or about January 14,
2003, until he obtained medical documentation; and (2) he was off work
until April 14, 2003.
The record reflects that complainant was hired by the agency in 1993,
and he sustained an injury to his back in 1996. Complainant's claim
for compensation was accepted by the Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs (OWCP), and he worked under various limited duty assignments
starting in 1996. The record further reflects that on December 12, 2002,
complainant's physician drafted documentation to support complainant's
request for light duty, which modified his prior physical restrictions.
The physician stated that complainant's restrictions were not permanent
and were necessary through February 15, 2003, with various restrictions
in lifting, carrying, climbing, grasping and twisting. Complainant had
no restrictions on kneeling or stooping, and with these restrictions,
his physician stated that he could work eight (8) hours per day.
However, complainant was taken off work by his Supervisor (S1) on January
14, 2003. S1 stated that complainant's request for light duty was denied
by the Nurse in the agency's Medical Unit as the medical documentation
from the physician was found to be illegible. S1 stated that he allowed
complainant several weeks to provide documentation which was acceptable
to the Medical Unit, and then he took complainant off work as the
Medical Unit would not approve a light duty assignment. Ultimately,
complainant's medical documentation was accepted by the Medical Unit,
and he returned to work on April 14, 2003.<1>
Believing he was the victim of discrimination, complainant sought
EEO counseling and filed the aforementioned formal complaint. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of disability discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant
failed to demonstrate that he was an individual with a disability under
the Rehabilitation Act. In so finding, the AJ determined that complainant
did not provide specific information concerning how his back injury limits
him in performing major life activities. The AJ noted that complainant
stated only that he had a back injury accepted by OWCP and listed the
restrictions set forth by his physician in December of 2002. The AJ
found that the medical documentation indicated that complainant has
work restrictions but he failed to provide evidence or an explanation
regarding how his back condition substantially limits him outside
of work. The AJ also noted that complainant is able to work eight (8)
hours per day, leading to the finding that complainant is not covered by
the Rehabilitation Act. The AJ noted that the fact that complainant has
an accepted OWCP claim does not establish a disability. The agency's
final action implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant makes no new
contentions on appeal.
An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review,
whether or not a hearing was held. The Commission's regulations allow
an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when the AJ finds that there
is no genuine issue of material fact. See 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. Petty v. Dept. of
Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that
grant of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of
material fact exists. Addressing complainant's allegations, we note
that under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make
reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency
can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. �
1630.9. Upon a complainant's request for reasonable accommodation,
an employer may require that documentation about the disability and
the functional limitations come from an appropriate health care or
rehabilitation professional. See EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Number 915.002, Question 6, (as revised October 17,
2002). When an employee's disability or need for an accommodation is
not known or obvious, an employer may ask an employee for reasonable
documentation about his or her disability, limitations, and accommodation
requirements See Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related Inquiries and
Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) (July 27, 2000) (web version) at 14.
In the instant case, we find for the sake of analysis that complainant
is an individual with a disability. Nevertheless, we find even
taking the facts in the light most favorable to complainant, that
he failed to establish he was discriminated against on the basis
of his disability.<2> Here, in support of his request for light
duty, complainant submitted medical documentation from his physician
listing his temporary restrictions. The agency, however, reasonably
found that the documentation was not sufficiently clear to approve
complainant's light duty request. The record indicates that the
medical documentation submitted with complainant's request for light
duty was found to be illegible by the Medical Unit in December of 2002,
and S1 allowed complainant several weeks to provide another copy of the
medical report. When he did not provide a copy of the medical report
which the Medical Unit could read, he was taken off work on January
14, 2003 pursuant to agency's operational procedure.<3> Investigative
Report (IR) at Affidavits B, D. The record indicates that on April 2,
2003, complainant's physician faxed medical documentation to the Medical
Unit which indicated an April 1, 2003 office visit. IR at Affidavit D.
Subsequently, complainant was allowed to return to work on April 14, 2003.
We find that the record indicates that complainant did not provide
the agency with medical documentation which the Nurse in the Medical
Unit could read, and thus the Medical Unit did not approve his request
for light duty. While it is unclear why legible medical documentation
with complainant's restrictions was not submitted to the Medical Unit
until April of 2003, the Commission finds that complainant failed to
establish that the agency took him off work on January 14, 2003 due to
discriminatory animus based on his alleged disability. Therefore, after a
careful review of the record, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we affirm the agency's final action.
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
______03-10-06____________
Date
1 The agency's Union filed a grievance on complainant's behalf, and the
Arbitrator found in complainant's favor, awarding back pay for the time
between January 14, 2003 and April 13, 2003. The evidence establishes
that complainant received a check from the agency for back pay in the
amount of $5,725.53 on October 1, 2003.
2 In reaching the above decision, we assumed, for analytical purposes
only, that complainant was an individual with a disability as alleged.
3 Complainant's Supervisor stated that he took complainant off work on
January 14, 2003 as he received a note from the Medical Unit stating
that the Nurse could not read the medical documentation. Investigative
Report at Affidavit B. The Supervisor stated that he had previously
sent employees home if they did not provide documentation according to
the agency's operating procedure, which stated that the Medical Unit had
to approve medical documentation before a job offer was to be given to
a given employee. Id. We note that the Arbitrator's decision found
that the Supervisor's action in taking complainant off work violated
the agency's collective bargaining agreement.