01A11403
07-29-2002
Jeanniene L. Yates, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jeanniene L. Yates v. United States Postal Service
01A11403
July 29, 2002
.
Jeanniene L. Yates,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A11403
Agency No. 4-H-302-0103-99
Hearing No. 110-AO-8372X
DECISION
Jeanniene L. Yates (complainant) timely initiated an appeal from the
agency's final order concerning her 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 order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Modified Clerk at the agency's
North Metro P&D Center, Duluth, Georgia facility, filed a formal EEO
complaint on September 8, 1999, alleging that the agency had discriminated
against her on the basis of disability (bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome)
when, on May 19, 1999, she was relieved of her assignment in the security
office without any explanation.
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 noted that there was no dispute as to whether complainant was
a qualified individual with a disability and concluded that the agency
provided her with a limited duty position to accommodate her disability.
The AJ further noted that it was undisputed complainant was not asked
to perform work that was outside her medical restrictions and that
although she was removed from an assignment in the security office,
she was not denied an accommodation. The AJ concluded that the agency
did not discriminate against complainant and that summary judgment
was appropriate. The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant reiterates arguments made during the investigation
and in response to the AJ's Notice of Intent to Issue Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law Without a Hearing. The agency requests that we
affirm its final order.
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. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. In so finding, we note that although complainant alleged
that she was denied a reasonable accommodation when she was removed
from her assignment in the security office, it is undisputed that she
accepted a job as a Modified Clerk as an accommodation and that this
assignment included a variety of duties, all of which she could perform
within her medical restrictions. Complainant apparently preferred
the assignment in the security office to the other assignments that
were part of her position as a Modified Clerk, but she did not argue
that these other assignments were outside of her medical restrictions.
We note that complainant is not entitled to the reasonable accommodation
of her choice, as long as the accommodation she is given is effective,
i.e., allows her to perform the essential functions of the position.
See EEOC Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (March 1, 1999), at Question 9. Here,
there is no dispute that complainant could perform the essential functions
of the other assignments which made up the Modified Clerk position.
Complainant also alleged that she was subjected to disparate treatment
based on her disability when she was removed from the assignment in the
security office. We note, however, that in her complaint she alleged
that those who were permitted to remain in the security office were
individuals with disabilities similar to her own. Even assuming that
she could nonetheless establish a prima facie case of disability-based
discrimination, she failed to dispute the explanations provided
by management for her removal from the security office assignment.
The Injury Compensation Specialist (ICS) stated that limited duty
employees such as complainant were placed in the security office on an
as-needed basis. The Manager of Distribution Operations supported this
testimony, noting that complainant was needed in the security office
for a temporary period to cover for others on vacation.
After a careful review of the record, including arguments and evidence
not specifically discussed in this decision, and construing the evidence
in the light most favorable to complainant, we find that she failed to
raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was denied
a reasonable accommodation or as to whether the agency's action was
motivated by her disability. The agency's final order finding no
discrimination is therefore AFFIRMED.
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
July 29, 2002
Date