0120081584
08-20-2009
Jerdine Y. Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jerdine Y. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081584
Agency No. 4H335010507
DECISION
On February 13, 2008, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
January 16, 2008 final decision concerning her 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events relevant to this complaint, complainant worked as
a Rural Carrier Associate at the agency's Valrico, Florida Post Office.
On January 25, 2007, complainant returned to work after using extended
leave for a foot and abdomen injury. Later that day, complainant asserts
that she re-injured her foot and abdomen. Further, complainant alleges
that she suffered stress and anxiety that day because the Valrico Post
Office was a difficult place to work.
Subsequently, on February 21, 2007, complainant declined a limited-duty
job offer to accommodate her injury. On February 26, 2007, complainant
requested and was granted 30 days off because of stress-induced
depression.
On April 25, 2007, complainant's doctor issued the agency a letter
clearing complainant to return to work. In the letter, the doctor stated
that it is "highly recommended that [complainant] be allowed to return
to work but at a different station if that could be accomplished."
The doctor further noted that complainant was highly "stressed out"
because she felt the Valrico Post Office was a difficult place to work.
Complainant was notified that she was scheduled to work on April 28, 2007.
Complainant failed to return to work as scheduled.
On May 4, 2007, complainant wrote a letter to the Officer-In-Charge
(OIC), requesting to work in another Post Office. On May 7, 2007,
complainant notified management officials that she was now living in
North Carolina and no longer had a residence in Florida. Further,
complainant told the management officials that she refused to return to
the Valrico Post Office.
On May 11, 2007, complainant was issued a Notice of Removal effective
June 29, 2007, for "Continued Unavailability for Work - AWOL."
On May 24, 2007, complainant's doctor wrote a letter stating that
complainant had become more stressed and depressed, and as a result,
was no longer cleared for work.
On July 25, 2007, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging
that she was discriminated against on the bases of disability (stress)
and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on May 15, 2007,
she received a Notice of Removal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When complainant
did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. �
1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.110(b). The decision concluded that complainant failed to prove
that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. Complainant now
appeals that decision to the Commission.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that
the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine
the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
In analyzing a disparate treatment claim under the Rehabilitation Act,
where the agency denies that its decisions were motivated by complainant's
disability and there is no direct evidence of discrimination, we apply
the burden-shifting method of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Heyman v. Queens Village
Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, 198 F.3d 68
(2d Cir. 1999); Swanks v. WMATA, 179 F.3d 929, 933-34 (D.C.Cir. 1999).
Complainant must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating
that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995). Here, we will
assume, without so finding, that complainant established her prima facie
cases of disability and reprisal discrimination.
We find that the agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons
for its actions. Specifically, complainant was issued the Notice of
Removal because she failed to report to work as scheduled, refused to
return to work, and moved out of state without notice to the agency.
Complainant must now establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretext for
discrimination. Besides complainant's bare assertions and subjective
beliefs, the record contains no evidence that would suggest that
discriminatory or retaliatory animus played a part in the agency's
actions. The record supports the agency's assertion that complainant
was issued the Letter of Removal because she failed to report to work
on her scheduled days, told her supervisor that she refused to return
to work, and moved to a different state without notifying management,
which clearly indicated an intent to not return to work. As a result,
we find that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were
pretext for discrimination.
Additionally, we note that complainant is also alleging that the agency
failed to reasonably accommodate her disability when it failed to reassign
her to another postal facility. Under the Commission's regulations, an
agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless
the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29
C.F.R. �� 1630.2(o) and (p). As a threshold matter, complainant must
establish that she is an "individual with a disability." An individual
with a disability is one who (1) has a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (2)
has a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such
an impairment. Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, Appendix to 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(i).
Assuming, without so finding, that complainant established that she
is a qualified individual with a disability, we find that the record
supports the agency's assertion that complainant failed to provide
sufficient medical documentation to support the need for a reasonable
accommodation. The only medical documentation that complainant provided
was a doctor's letter dated April 25, 2007, which was vague and did not
include a prognosis, diagnosis, and complainant's specific limitations.
An agency is not required to provide an accommodation if an employee
refuses to provide the relevant medical documentation. See EEOC Guidance
on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (Reasonable Accommodation Guidance), EEOC Notice
No. 915.002 (as revised, October 17, 2002), at question 6. Therefore,
we find that complainant failed to establish that the agency failed to
provide her with a reasonable accommodation.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the agency's
final decision, because a preponderance of the evidence does not establish
that discrimination occurred as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (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 (Z1008)
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
August 20, 2009
Date
2
0120081584
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120081584