[Redacted], John C., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 2, 2022Appeal No. 2022000309 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 2, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 John C.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000309 Hearing No. 430-2020-00462X Agency No. 1K-281-0004-20 DECISION On October 21, 2021, 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 September 13, 2021 final order concerning his 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 order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisor, Distributions Operations (SDO), EAS-17, at the Agency’s Downing Road Annex in Fayetteville, North Carolina. On December 19, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)) when: 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. 2022000309 2 1. On September 23, 2019, Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation when he was notified that his detail as Supervisor, Customer Service (SCS), ended; and 2. On January 8, 2020, the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) denied his request for a reasonable accommodation despite the availability of vacant positions and/or detail opportunities. Complainant experiences complications from PTSD, which stems from his military service. Complainant conceded that he could not perform the position of SDO, because the equipment at his work location exacerbated his PTSD. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 70, 72. Complainant requested a detail to the SCS position at the Tokay Station, which the Agency granted. The detail assignment was not granted as a reasonable accommodation; rather, it was granted based on Complainant’s letter to management officials requesting a detail. From October 15, 2018, until September 26, 2019, Complainant was able to perform the essential duties of the SCS position at the Tokay Station. ROI at 53. On September 17, 2019, the Acting Postmaster told Complainant that the Agency wanted to move him back to the SDO position at the Plant. ROI at 36, 63. Complainant averred he informed the Acting Postmaster of his need for a medical accommodation and provided a 2018 letter from his doctor. ROI at 63. On September 26, 2019, Complainant was ordered to return to the Plant, due to a staffing shortage. ROI at 63. On October 1, 2019, Complainant sent an email to the Human Resources Manager and Labor Relations Manager requesting accommodation due to his detail assignment ending. On October 10, 2019, the DRAC requested Complainant and his doctor to provide information relevant to his accommodation request. Complainant submitted documentation stating that he was requesting an accommodation of being placed in a SCS position. Complainant’s doctor completed documentation stating that Complainant was “unable to work around the machinery that can trigger flashbacks” and that he is unable to be around machinery that produces loud noise. On November 23, 2019, the DRAC scheduled a meeting with Complainant for December 4, 2019. Following the meeting, Complainant provided updated medical documentation indicating that his condition is permanent and that he could not work in an environment with machinery that triggers his condition. On December 21, 2019, the DRAC informed Complainant that due to his work restrictions, he could not be accommodated in his position of SDO at the Fayetteville facility. The DRAC stated management would conduct a search for SCS detail assignments and that Complainant should also continue to apply for permanent positions within his work restrictions. Complainant submitted additional medical documentation in February 2020. In March 2020, the DRAC offered Complainant another position, as the Request-For-Information Coordinator (RFI Coordinator) at the Fayetteville facility. Complainant accepted the position and began working in the position on March 30, 2021. 2022000309 3 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency did not deny or unreasonably delay providing Complainant reasonable accommodation. The AJ found that the Agency provided the Complainant a modified job assignment on March 9, 2020, two months and 17 days after he provided updated medical documentation on December 21, 2019. During that time, Complainant and the Agency were engaged in the interactive process in which DRAC was in search of available positions within Complainant’s medical restrictions. After locating an accommodating position, the Agency offered Complainant a modified assignment on March 9, 2020. Complainant accepted this accommodation and began working in this accommodating position on or about March 30, 2021, as a RFI Coordinator at the Fayetteville Distribution Center. Complainant does not dispute that offered position accommodated his disability. Complainant argued that he should have been able to remain in the SCS position at the Tokay station, despite that position being a detail assignment. The Agency noted that Complainant was placed in that position as a result of Complainant’s request for a temporary detail assignment, and not as part of a reasonable accommodation. The Agency admitted at the conclusion of Complainant’s detail, they planned to move him back to the Fayetteville facility due to a lack of EAS supervisors at that location. However, once Complainant informed management that he needed a reasonable accommodation, he was not required to move back to that position. After leaving the Tokay station, Complainant noted that he had applied for at least two vacant Customer Service positions and that those positions still appeared to be open. Complainant argued that he should have been placed into one of those position. However, instead of interrupting the competitive selection process for those positions, Complainant was provided an effective accommodation in another position on March 9, 2021. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant was not denied reasonable accommodation or subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, Complainant contends that there were at least two vacant Customer Service positions available outside of the Plant, and the Agency could have placed Complainant in one of those positions, but the Agency did not do so, and did not show hardship. 2022000309 4 Complainant contends that the Agency refused to place him in a permanent position that would have accommodated him and then removed him from the temporary position that had accommodated him, simply because they could. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the final order. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was subjected to discrimination as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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. 2022000309 5 Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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. 2022000309 6 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 November 2, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation