Opinion
99 Civ. 0929 (JSM)(JCF)
July, 2000
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Government moves for summary judgment dismissing the pro se complaint of Roger Pudlin brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Mr. Pudlin seeks to compel the Postal Service to provide various accommodations which he alleges he needs because of his disabilities. The motion was noticed to be submitted to Magistrate Judge Francis who is assigned to supervise the pre-trial proceedings in this case. However, dispositive motions such as this motion for summary judgment have not been assigned to him and, therefore, as the District Judge to whom this case is assigned, the undersigned will rule on the motion.
While the Government does not contest the fact that Mr. Pudlin has certain disabilities, including the need to wear a feces bag, it contends that it has made reasonable accommodations to permit him access to postal services and that the other accommodations that he seeks are not reasonable and, therefore, not required.
The Rehabilitation Act requires Government agencies to make reasonable accommodations to assure the disabled "meaningful access" to their services. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301, 105 S.Ct. 712, 720 (1985). However, the Rehabilitation Act does not require the agency to alter the fundamental nature of its programs or to incur undue expense or administrative burden. See Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 407, 411-12, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2369-70 (1979). In this case, the Postal Service has undertaken to make reasonable accommodations to provide Mr. Pudlin with meaningful access to its services. The additional accommodations that Mr. Pudlin has sought, which the Post Office has not provided, are not required.
To accommodate Mr. Pudlin's asserted need for prompt service, the Post Office has provided him prompt access to service at Window 3 at the Madison Square Post Office which is two blocks from his home. While Mr. Pudlin complains that he is not provided prompt access at other post offices, he does not assert that any other post office would be closer to him. It is not reasonable to require that the Postal Service provide him with similar special services at all of its locations since this would impose an "undue administrative burden."
Mr. Pudlin also complains that he is not provided access to the employee bathroom at the post office, but no other patron is given access to that bathroom. Thus, Mr. Pudlin is not being denied any service that is provided to others. Moreover, given the location of the bathroom in the back of the post office, it would not be appropriate to provide access to that facility to a member of the public.
The Postal Service has accommodated Mr. Pudlin by permitting him to have parcels sent to him delivered to a local laundry. He complains, however, that the Post Office will not pick up, at the laundry, packages that he wishes to mail. But the Postal Service does not pick up packages as a matter of routine for any customer. The Postal Service is not required to give Mr. Pudlin preferential treatment in this regard. See Lyons v. Legal Aid Soc'y, 68 F.3d 1512, 1516 (2d Cir. 1995). Similarly, Mr. Pudlin has no right to have the Post Office ship material to him at special rates because the contents are related to his disability.
In sum, the Court has reviewed all of Plaintiff's claims for special treatment and finds that, where appropriate, the Postal Service has made reasonable accommodations to facilitate Plaintiff's access to its services. The other accommodations he seeks would impose an undue administrative burden on the Postal Service and are not required by the Rehabilitation Act.
For the foregoing reasons the motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.