0120063953
03-11-2008
Karen R. Lenton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Karen R. Lenton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200639531
Agency No. 4J-481-0018-03
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's decision dated May
15, 2006, finding no discrimination. In her complaint, dated February 8,
2003, complainant, a City Letter Carrier at the Garden City, Michigan
Post Office, alleged discrimination based on disability (fibromyalgia)
and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was subjected to a
hostile work environment on October 18, 2002.
After completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant
requested a hearing but later withdrew the request.2 The agency
then issued its decision concluding that it asserted legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which complainant failed to
rebut.
After a review of the record, the Commission, assuming arguendo that
complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination,
finds that the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the alleged action. Complainant claimed that on the date
of the alleged action, she was issued a Letter of Removal based on her
inability to perform the duties of a City Letter Carrier's job due to
her medical conditions.
The Postmaster stated that he made the decision to issue the alleged
Letter of Removal because complainant worked for the agency since
October 1995, and was injured several times and was not able to do
the job as a City Letter Carrier. He further stated that on July 18,
2002, complainant returned to work as a modified City Letter Carrier
and worked less than one hour and claimed another on-the-job injury.
Complainant's supervisor also indicated that since December 1, 1997,
complainant was not able to perform all of her duties and she failed to
demonstrate that she could perform her letter carrier duties in a safe
manner. The agency, undisputed by complainant, stated that complainant
subsequently filed a grievance and as a result, the Letter of Removal
was rescinded and expunged from all records and she was made whole for
all lost wages and benefits.
Here, we do not decide whether complainant was a qualified individual
with a disability. We do find, however, that the agency reasonably
accommodated complainant's claimed disability. The agency, undisputed by
complainant, indicated that during the relevant time period, complainant
was unable to perform her duties as a City Letter Carrier and she was
allowed to perform a set of duties, i.e., answering the telephone and
sitting in the middle of the floor monitoring the door for unauthorized
personnel. Complainant has not identified any permanent funded vacant
position to which she was qualified to perform the essential functions
thereof with or without reasonable accommodations. Complainant does
not claim that she was required to perform the duties beyond her
medical restrictions. After a review of the record, we do not find
that the agency's issuance of the Letter of Removal was motivated by
discrimination. We also do not find the alleged action was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment such as
to constitute a hostile work environment.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no discrimination is 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
3/11/08
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the
above-referenced appeal number.
2 Although complainant contends that her case should be heard by an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), the record clearly indicates that in her
letter dated March 27, 2006, she requested that the AJ withdraw her case
from a hearing. There is no evidence indicating the withdrawal was not
voluntary.
??
??
??
??
2
0120063953
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036