993 F.2d 1550 (7th Cir. 1993), 92-1995, Kroggel v. Runyon
|Citation:||993 F.2d 1550|
|Party Name:||Kathleen K. KROGGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marvin RUNYON, [**] Postmaster General, and Robert Reich, [***] Secretary of Labor, Defendant-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||April 20, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided May 17, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 90 C 482; Thomas J. Curran, Judge.
Before COFFEY, FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") dismissed Kathleen Kroggel's claims of employment and handicap discrimination against the United States Postal Service, she filed this civil action pro se in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General and the Secretary of Labor, 1 and we affirm.
In 1984, as a result of employment-related medical conditions, Kroggel left the employ of the United States Postal Service in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and began receiving worker's compensation benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act ("FECA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. In March of 1985, Kroggel filed an employment discrimination action against the Postmaster General in federal court. Subsequently, Kroggel filed three separate complaints with the EEO of the Postal Service alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap and reprisal. The first alleged that a supervisor had submitted false information to the Office of Worker's Compensation Program ("OWCP"). The second charged the Postal Service with mishandling her OWCP files. The third claimed that Kroggel had been improperly ordered to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination, and had not been allowed to have a representative present during the examination. Kroggel's federal action settled in 1986 by an agreement providing in part that subsequent EEOC complaints would survive as to any cause of action arising after March of 1985 and that any cause of action arising before March of 1985 would be dismissed.
On February 18, 1988, the Postal Service issued a final agency decision resolving all three administrative complaints by a finding that Kroggel was not a qualified handicapped individual and that no discrimination or reprisal discrimination had occurred. The agency decision was ultimately affirmed by the EEOC on March 27, 1990. The EEOC found that Kroggel's first complaint was untimely under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.214(a)(1)(i) 2 and precluded by the 1986 settlement agreement. As to the other two later complaints, the EEOC ruled that Kroggel had failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination.
Kroggel then filed this action alleging additional physical and mental harm caused by "the defendants' adverse actions" and her efforts "to oppose the adverse actions." Amended Complaint, ¶ ¶ 1, 2. She also asserted that these adverse actions were designed to hinder the processing of her worker's compensation claim, and to deprive her of entitled benefits. Id. at ¶ 4. In response, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP