0120081942
08-12-2011
Trinette Allen, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Trinette Allen,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081942
Hearing No. 440-2007-00191X
Agency No. 4J-606-0035-07
DECISION
On March 14, 2008, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s
February 21, 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 Commission deems the
appeal timely and accepts it 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 giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Carrier at the Agency’s Roseland Station facility in Chicago,
Illinois. The record showed that Complainant sustained an on-the-job
injury to her left knee in 1996 when she worked at the Agency’s
Lincoln Park Station. Complainant has been provided with work within
her restrictions. In May 2001, Complainant was issued a reminder that her
Rehab Carrier job would remain available to her; however she was required
to present medical evidence on an annual basis. Complainant provided
reports from her physician in October 2001, June 2002, and March 2003.
In May 2003, Complainant was offered a new Rehabilitation position with
the Roseland Station. The job offer specified that she was required to
submit medical evidence on an annual basis. On December 11, 2006, the
Manager contacted Complainant informing her that she needed to provide
her updated medical information regarding her work restrictions as it
related to her position and the on-the-job injury. Complainant was also
notified that, effective December 18, 2006, her modified duties would
no longer be available to her until she provided the updated information.
Complainant failed to provide the requested medical update. As such,
on December 18, 2006, Complainant was not allowed to work.
On January 22, 2007, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (left
knee) when:
1. On December 15, 2006, the Manager of Injury Compensation changed
Complainant’s physician of record without Complainant’s authorization;
and
2. Since December 18, 2006, Complainant has not been allowed to work.
The Agency dismissed claim (1) for failure to state a claim pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). The Agency noted that Complainant alleged
that the change was made with the Office of Workers Compensation Programs
(OWCP). The Agency found that such a claim constituted a collateral
attack against OWCP. Therefore, the Agency found that the EEO process
was not the correct forum for such a claim.
The Agency accepted claim (2) for investigation. At the conclusion of the
investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing but the
AJ denied the hearing request on the grounds that Complainant failed to
prosecute her case and her for failure to follow directions issued by
the AJ. The AJ ordered the parties to issue prehearing submissions and
to respond to “dispositive motions.” The AJ noted that Complainant
only provided a designation of representative form. The AJ issued an
order to show cause. When Complainant failed to respond to the AJ’s
show cause order, the AJ canceled Complainant’s request for a hearing.
The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency, and the Agency issued a
final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision
concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination as alleged.
Complainant appealed asserting that she was discriminated against when the
Agency asked her to provide medical documentation and removed her from her
position when she failed to provide the requested medical documentation.
We note that Complainant has not challenged the procedural dismissal or
the AJ’s dismissal of the hearing. The Agency asked that the Commission
affirm its decision finding no discrimination.
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 Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614,
at 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”).
The Commission notes that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits
discrimination against qualified disabled individuals. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630. In order to establish that Complainant was denied a reasonable
accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a
disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified
individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F. R. § 1630.2(m); and
(3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002). 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. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(c) and (p). For
purposes of analysis, the Commission shall assume, without so finding,
that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.
To the extent Complainant alleged that she was denied a reasonable
accommodation when she was not permitted to work after December 18, 2006,
upon review of this matter, the Commission concludes that Complainant
has failed to prove that she was denied a reasonable accommodation in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Further, the Agency's request for
updated medical documentation was appropriate under the Rehabilitation
Act. The record indicates that it had been years since Complainant had
provided the Agency with updated medical information. Complainant refused
to provide updated medical documentation and consequently, was placed
in off-duty status. The record indicated that the Agency was unable to
determine if Complainant would need additional accommodations or whether
she could return to full duty without the updated medical documentation.
The Agency needed updated medical documentation to evaluate Complainant's
requested accommodation in light of her medical needs so that it could
determine what accommodation would best serve the needs of the Agency
and Complainant. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation
and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC
No. 915.002, Question 6 and 8 (as revised Oct. 17, 2002). It is clear
that the Agency sought to engage Complainant in the interactive process,
but Complainant failed to participate. Therefore, the Commission finds
that Complainant has not demonstrated that she was denied 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 finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 12, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120081942
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120081942