0120071279
04-09-2009
Jyoti Modi, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jyoti Modi,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120071279
Hearing No. 170-2005-00565X
Agency No. 4A088011204
DECISION
On January 3, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
December 4, 2006 final order 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., and 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 order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Mail Processing Clerk at the agency's New Brunswick, New Jersey
facility. On December 15, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that she was discriminated against on the bases of national
origin (Indian), disability (skin graft on leg), age (46 at the relevant
time), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. management improperly requested medical documentation in
connection with complainant's light duty and sick leave;
2. management denied her light duty accommodation for her injured
leg;
3. on several occasions, complainant was yelled at by her supervisor
(S1);
4. on April 7, 2004, management issued her a Letter of Warning
(LOW) for refusing a direct order from S1.
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). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case held a hearing on
October 26, 2006, and issued a decision on November 8, 2006, finding no
discrimination. The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that she was subjected
to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, complainant reiterates her
contention that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination and a hostile
work environment. Complainant also contends that S1's hearing testimony
is not worthy of credence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
She 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, because 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 concur with the AJ's finding that assuming, arguendo, complainant
established a prima facie case of national origin, age, disability, and
reprisal discrimination, the agency nonetheless articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the record
shows that, on April 6, 2004, S1 instructed complainant to report to the
computerized forwarding system section, but that complainant "questioned
[S1's] authority and disrespected [her] ... loudly and demonstratively on
the workroom floor." (Report of Investigation, Exhibit 6). The record
also shows that as a result of complainant's actions, S1 issued her a
LOW, and that this discipline was issued in accordance with the agency's
progressive discipline policy. Id. With respect to management requesting
that complainant provide medical documentation, the record shows that
these requests were made in connection with complainant's request for
light duty and her unscheduled sick leave. The record also shows that
complainant repeatedly refused to provide the requested documentation,
stating that she'd "been giving enough documents for employee medical."
(Hearing Transcript, 30). The record shows, however, that when S1
contacted the Occupational Health Nurse Administrator, S1 was informed
that the agency had no medical documentation on file for complainant.
(R.O.I., Ex. 13). Here, we concur with the AJ that the agency's requests
for medical documentation were not improper. We further concur with the
AJ's finding that complainant failed to show that the agency's actions
were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus, or that the
agency's articulated reasons for its actions are pretextual.
We note that complainant also alleges that she was denied light duty,
a form of a reasonable accommodation. Federal agencies are required
to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with
disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment unless to do
so would cause undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9(a). We also note that
when an individual's disability or need for reasonable accommodation is
not obvious, and he or she fails to provide reasonable documentation
requested by the employer, then the employer will not be held liable
for failure to provide the requested accommodation. EEOC's Enforcement
Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the
American with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (October 17,
2002), Question 6. Here, we concur with the AJ's finding that the
agency's requests for medical documentation were proper. We also concur
with the AJ's finding that any delays in providing complainant with a
reasonable accommodation were the result of her refusal to submit the
requested medical documentation. (H.T., 30-31; 51-52; 65; 86; 103).
Finally, to the extent that complainant is alleging that she was subjected
to a hostile work environment, by being yelled at or otherwise, we concur
with the AJ's finding that complainant's claim of hostile work environment
must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). A prima facie case of hostile
work environment is precluded based on our finding that complainant
failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the agency were
motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Oakley v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (September 21, 2000).
We find that the AJ's findings are supported by the record, and we
discern no basis upon which to disturb the AJ's decision. Accordingly,
we affirm the agency's final order.
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
April 9, 2009
Date
2
0120071279
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120071279