EEOC Appeal 2020001869

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Mirta L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001869
Hearing No. 480-2016-00824X
Agency No. 1F-901-0040-16
DECISION
On December 16, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s October 10, 2019 final action 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 the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler Equipment Operator at the
Agency’s Los Angeles Processing and Distribution (P&DC) in Los Angeles, California.
On March 16, 2016, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability,2 age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity (Agency Nos. 1F-901-0088-15, 1F-901-0061-14, and 1F-901-0011-14) when:
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
2 Complainant identified her disabilities as “right arm, hands, ribs, elbow and hands.” For purposes
of this analysis, we assume, without so finding, that Complainant was an individual with a
disability.

2020001869	2
1. 	Complainant became aware that the CA-7 Claim for Compensation forms that she
submitted were not processed in a timely manner; and
2. 	Complainant had been provided duties which she believed exceeded the restrictions in her
modified job assignment.
On April 11, 2016, the Agency issued a partial dismissal. 	The Agency accepted claim 2 for
investigation. However, the Agency dismissed claim 1 for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). Specifically, the Agency found that Complainant was raising a collateral
attack on the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)
adjudicatory process. The Agency stated that Complainant should have raised such matters through
the OWCP process, and not through the EEO complaint process.
After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. Thereafter, the Agency submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Complainant responded to the motion. 	Subsequently, the AJ issued a decision by summary
judgment in favor of the Agency. Thereafter, the Agency issued its final order, adopting the AJ’s
decision.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine”
if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105
(1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. 	In
rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see
also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-
110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with
specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence,
and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law.

2020001869	3
Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding
that the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant failed to
establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of
Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor.
In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during
the investigation established the following undisputed facts.
The AJ noted that Complainant filed her first Motion to Reinstate claim 1 which was insufficient
to support her request to reinstate her CA-7 Claim, but she allowed Complainant to file an amended
motion to reinstate, as a second attempt to request the Commission to reinstate her CA-7 Claim.
After Complainant filed a second attempt to request reinstatement of her CA-7 Claim, the Agency
responded. Thereafter, the AJ issued an Order finding that the Agency properly dismissed claim
1 for failure to state a claim and she denied Complainant’s motion to reinstate.
During the relevant period, Complainant was employed as a Mail Handler Equipment Operation
at the Agency’s Los Angeles P&DC. 	Her duties require heavy manual labor, including driving
forklifts and moving mail containers.
At the time Complainant had severe, permanent medical restrictions associated with a 2010 on-
the-job injury. 	Her restrictions included the following: working only 4 hours, being prohibited
from driving a forklift or any vehicle, lifting limited to no more than 5 pounds, no forceful grasping
or gripping, and no pushing or pulling. 	Consequently, Complainant cannot perform any of the
duties associated with her Mail Handler Equipment Operation. Instead, Complainant was provided
work generating labels for equipment scheduled to be dispatched. She has been performing label-
generating duties since September 2013.
On March 20, 2015, Complainant accepted an Offer of Modified Assignment (Limited Duty) to
perform scanning and color-coding duties for 4 hours per day and lifting only a 2-pound scanner.
The subject offer contained specific instructions to not exceed her medical restrictions.
The AJ noted that Complainant provided no examples of what she was allegedly forced to do that
exceeded her medical restrictions and provided no dates as to when this supposedly occurred. The
AJ 	further noted that 	a review of Complainant’s March 	2017 medical report 	regarding
Complainant’s entitlement for a scheduled award in conjunction to her workers’ compensation
claim does not contain a single mention of any work beyond her medical restrictions or any injuries
or harm as a result. 	Moreover, testimony from supervisors familiar with Complainant’s work
indicated she only worked four hours per shift and continued to perform label-generating duties.
Records shows that Complainant did not work more than 4 hours on any day between October 27,
2015 and December 11, 2015.

2020001869	4
Under the Commission’s regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodations
to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability
unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 	29 C.F.R. §
1630.9. The Commission will assume without deciding that Complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability.
Here, Complainant claimed that she has been provided duties which she believed exceeded the
restrictions in her modified job assignment. We find, however, that substantial record evidence
supports the Agency’s finding that Agency management accommodated Complainant within her
medical restrictions. There is no evidence of record to dispute this assertion.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final action, implementing the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding
no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 	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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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.

2020001869	5
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ 	Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 14, 2020
Date