Patricia A. Randle's Legal Cases (3)

Employment and labor

Dietra S v. SSA EEOC Appeal No.0720170025

Oct 12, 2017

OUTCOME: The Commission DISMISSED the Agency's appeal as untimely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.403(c) and upheld the AJ’s decision

Complainant, a Service Representative at the Agency’s Kapolei, Hawaii office, filed her complaint alleging discrimination based on disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: her October 22 ... and 30, 2008 requests for accommodation were not granted; and she was subjected to harassment from September 28, 2008, forward. The hearing was held on May 29 and 30, and June 11, 2012. The AJ found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant based on her disability when she was denied her requests for accommodation for a parking space and not to perform eServices duties. The AJ awarded Complainant nonpecuniary compensatory damages; attorney’s fees and costs, and 33% of the leave she used during the period from October 21, 2008 through July 1, 2009. The The Agency, appealed the the AJ’s finding of discrimination based on disability when it denied Complainant’s request for accommodation and the concomitant remedies. The Agency sent it appeal to an incorrect address for the Office of Federal Operations on November 9, 2012. The Commission found the Agency submitted no evidence and the record was devoid of any evidence that the Agency filed its appeal to the proper address at the Commission within the 40-day time limit. The Commission noted the Agency did not submit any adequate justification to invoke waiver or equitable tolling for filing the appeal.

Employment and labor

Lewis Z.,1 v. Department of the Air Force, Agency. Appeal No. 0720170013

Apr 06, 2017

OUTCOME: Upeld AJ finding of discrimination and remedies, and ORDERED reinstatement ad attorney fees

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Journeyman Electrician at the Agency's Civil Engineering facility located at Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), Davis-Monthan Air ... Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. On August 21, 2009, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging the Agency subjected him to discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, on June 15, 2009, the Agency reassigned him from the AMARG to the Facilities Maintenance Team (FMT). In sum, the AJ concluded that the actions by management reassigning Complainant from AMARG to FMT just seven days after he filed a complaint against the supervisor constituted amounted to unlawful retaliation. www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0720170013.r.txt

Employment and labor

Underwood, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Appeal No. 0720120001

Jan 18, 2013

OUTCOME: OFO upheld the AJ decision - Evidence showed the parties could have found a reasonable accommodation that would enable the individual with a disability to perform the job's essential functions

Complainant worked as a Contact Representative, GS-0928-08, at the Agency's Downtown Field Office in Baltimore, Maryland, until her resignation in April 2010. Due to a disability, (not diagnosed at tha ... t time) Complainant had difficulty coming to work, and as a result she incurred hundreds of hours of absence without leave, placed her on leave restrictions, issued numerous suspensions and ultimately a proposed removal, which was put on hold after the parties entered into an Abeyance Agreement. In May 2008, Complainant was diagnosed with a disability and her psychiatrist submitted documentation that the Agency ultimately applied the psychiatrist's documentation towards Complainant's request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. However, when Complainant requested a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities in October 2008 Complainant's supervisor gave Complainant a November 2008 memorandum detailing what the Agency required in order to grant her reasonable accommodation request. The Agency provided a very precise and detailed list of the medical information it wanted from Complainant's physician, and stated that the information must be provided on the physician's letterhead. Instead of asking the physician to provide a general prognosis, diagnosis and an explanation of the limitations of Complainant's disability, the Agency asked very specific questions about Complainant's prognosis, diagnosis, treatment, effects, and limitations. The AJ noted that the Agency's requirements were problematic because "they are absurdly detailed and elevate form over substance." The AJ issued a bench decision on liability and damages, and found that the Agency failed to reasonably accommodate Complainant's disability. The AJ found that the supervisor should have treated Complainant's January 5, 2009 medical report as a request for reassessment of her request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of flexible leave. The AJ found that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability, and that the Agency should have engaged in the interactive process and provided Complainant with flexible leave as an accommodation. The AJ awarded Complainant non-pecuniary compensatory damages, pecuniary damages, and ordered the agency to pay attorney's Fees and Costs, https://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0720120001%20Underwood%20v%20SSA.txt

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained