0120122709
02-05-2015
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120122709
Hearing No. 470-2011-00187X
Agency No. 1J-461-0016-11
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's May 10, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final agency decision (FAD).
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Full-time Laborer Custodian at the Agency's Indianapolis Processing and Distribution Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. On April 26, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female/pregnancy) when she was not provided light duty work on December 15, 16, and 17, 2010. Complainant testified that on December 15, 2010, she requested Light Duty for December 15, 16, and 17, 2010 "until her Doctor released her from work." Complainant's physician wrote that Complainant was diagnosed with "pregnancy, uterine fibroids, bilateral lower extremity varicosities, pelvic pain."
Her work restrictions included: no lifting/carrying, driving, operating machinery; sitting 8 hours; and standing, walking, bending, twisting, climbing, and reaching above the shoulder up to 1 hour. Further instructions indicated that Complainant needed "to be primarily sitting, with minimal ambulation." After Complainant was told that there were no duties that fit within these restrictions, on the following day Complainant's restrictions were changed to lifting/carrying 1 to 20 pounds; and standing, walking, bending, twisting, climbing, and reaching above the shoulder - 8 hours. Complainant was still restricted from driving, operating machinery, and reaching above her shoulders. Once her restrictions were understood, Complainant was allowed to work in Mail Processing. Complainant maintained that three other employees were treated more favorably than she was when they requested light duty work.
Following an investigation by the Agency, Complainant failed to make a request regarding her desire for a hearing or a FAD so a FAD was issued.1 The FAD found that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as she failed to show that any comparators were treated more favorably. The Agency noted that two of the comparators offered by Complainant were not similarly situated to her as they had been injured on the job and were limited duty employees. The third comparator was given the same light duty assignment that Complainant received. Notwithstanding, the FAD found that assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of sex/pregnancy discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely that the first medical restrictions that Complainant submitted prohibited her from doing practically everything.
To accommodate her, management offered to allow Complainant to dust but she was unable to do that. Complainant then requested that she be allowed to work in the Dual Primary Unit (manual letter cases). Her request was granted, however, she could not pull the mail out of the cases so she was sent home. Thereafter, Complainant submitted amended medical restrictions which allowed her to do considerably more work; therefore, she was assigned duties within those restrictions. The Agency explained that it found it odd that Complainant's restrictions went from allowing her to do almost nothing to being able to do many things but that once needed clarification regarding her restrictions were provided she was assigned work. The Agency found that Complainant failed to show that its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, neither Complainant nor the Agency submitted a brief.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the Agency's final decision. We find that even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of sex/pregnancy discrimination, the record shows that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as was discussed above. Moreover, the record demonstrates that Complainant was offered light duty work once her restrictions were clarified. We note that Complainant has provided no evidence which suggests that discriminatory animus was involved with regard to the Agency's actions. Accordingly, we find because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred that the Agency's FAD should be AFFIRMED.
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.
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
_2/5/15_________________
Date
1 At the start of the investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ found that Complainant's request was premature and sent her case back to the Agency for an investigation. After the investigation, Complainant was notified of her right to now request a hearing but she did not submit a request.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120122709
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120122709