0120064809
05-08-2008
Gary B. Wright, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Gary B. Wright,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200648091
Hearing No. 370-2005-00280X
Agency No. 1F-941-0019-04
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated July 28,
2006, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. In his
complaint, complainant, a Mail Handler at the agency's San Francisco
P&DC, alleged discrimination based on disability (Crohn's disease with
erosive inflammatory arthritis), race (multi-ethnic), color (brown),
and sex (male) when his request for reasonable accommodation was denied
from December 5, 2003, to the present.
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On July
17, 2006, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.
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.
The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,
as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ
determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a
prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged actions. The AJ noted
that complainant's medical evidence indicated that due to his Crohn's
disease with erosive inflammatory arthritis, he would have "flares"
of symptoms which were episodic and occurred approximately one time
per year, varying in length. In order to accommodate his conditions,
complainant was allowed to take restroom breaks as needed; allowed to
work at his own pace; not required to lift heavy objects; and was given
absences from work when needed.
On January 28, 2003, complainant requested as additional accommodation
that his work schedule be reduced from full-time to part-time. In support
of this request, complainant submitted a doctor's note which simply named
his condition and stated that, "Although he is responding well to therapy,
he has been unable to work full time and should be reduced to part time
regular work status indefinitely." The letter did not indicate whether
complainant was substantially limited in any major life activities
or how long the impairment was expected to last. The agency's San
Francisco District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) responded
to the request on February 27, 2003, asking for supporting medical
documentation. Specifically, the letter indicated that DRAC needed
additional information about how complainant's impairment impacts him,
a statement of his specific medical requirements and/or restrictions,
and the physician's assessment as to the duration of the restrictions.
Complainant failed to respond to DRAC's request for supporting medical
documentation
On April 16, 2003, DRAC forwarded a second request for medical information
to complainant. Again, complainant failed to respond to DRAC's request
for supporting medical documentation. On July 17, 2003, DRAC forwarded
to complainant a third and final request for medical information.
Finally, in March 2004, DRAC received medical documentation supporting
complainant's request. According to DRAC documents, a medical document
dated January 30, 2004, stated that complainant should, "Avoid sitting
and standing without breaks for longer than 4 hours/day. Limit lifting
and carrying over 10 pounds. Likely to have days when he is incapacitated
and unable to work." However, the medical documentation did not specify
that complainant could work only 4 hours per day. On July 1, 2004, DRAC
notified complainant that it would not grant the requested accommodation
based on the medical documentation he had submitted.
Based on the foregoing, the AJ determined that complainant did not present
any evidence to demonstrate that his additional request, that he only
work 4 hours per day, would have accommodated him any more effectively
than the existing accommodations. Complainant's rationale for the
part-time request was that he was unable to work when he experiences
"flares" of his Crohn's disease/arthritis and needed to rest. The AJ
noted that when experiencing a "flare" of symptoms, complainant was
unable to work in any capacity; thus, it was unclear how the requested
accommodation of working part-time would accommodate complainant any
more effectively than the current accommodations.
Assuming (without deciding) that complainant was an individual with
a disability, the AJ determined and we agree that even though it was
not the accommodation of complainant's choice, the agency satisfied its
obligations to accommodate complainant. The AJ further determined that it
was complainant who delayed providing the DRAC with the necessary medical
documentation until March of 2004; thus, the agency was not responsible
for any delay in responding to his request for accommodation. The AJ
added that complainant failed to identify any comparable employees who
were treated more favorably. Here, complainant has not shown that he
was required to perform his duties beyond his medical restrictions.
Accordingly, the agency's final action is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
5/8/08
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the
above-referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
2
0120064809
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036