Eduardo Mont. v. Donahoe
| Decision Date | 01 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | EP-10-CV-212-KC |
| Parties | EDUARDO MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
On this day, the Court considered "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's Motion"), ECF No. 21, and "Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" ("Plaintiff's Motion"), ECF No. 25. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as moot.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff began employment with the United States Postal Service ("USPS") in June 1986 as a city letter carrier. Def.'s Proposed Undisputed Facts ¶ 10, ECF No. 16. As a city letter carrier, the essential functions of Plaintiff's job are to inspect the vehicle, case the mail, complete change of address cards, scan delivery confirmations, load the vehicle, and deliver the mail. Id. ¶ 12. The physical requirements of Plaintiff's city letter carrier position are as follows: lifting up to seventy pounds intermittently, one to three hours a day; sitting for one hour; standing for two to three hours; walking for five hours; climbing for one hour; bending or stooping for one hour; pushing orpulling for one hour; twisting for one hour; simple grasping for one hour; fine manipulation for 6.6 hours; reaching above shoulders for 6 to eight hours; and driving a vehicle for two to six hours. Id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury in 1998 when he injured his neck and hand after a cabinet fell on him. Id. ¶ 36. As a result of this injury, Plaintiff was given a medical restriction which stated he could not lift more than fifteen pounds. Id. ¶ 37. Because of this limitation, other city letter carriers were asked to deliver parcels in excess of fifteen pounds for Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 38. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff suffered a second on-the-job injury when a dog attacked him. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. As Plaintiff jumped into his vehicle to escape from the dog, he suffered an annular tear in his lower back. Id. ¶ 40. As a result of the injury, Plaintiff did not work in July and August of 2008. Id. ¶ 42. Upon returning to work in August 2008, Plaintiff's prior restriction was modified to limit the weight he could carry to ten pounds. Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff continued to deliver his entire route until November 2008. Id. ¶ 45. In November 2008, Plaintiff complained of pain and was consequently assigned to perform office work. Id. ¶ 46. Regina Boutte ("Boutte"), acting station manager at Sunrise Station where Plaintiff worked, made the decision to restrict Plaintiff's duties to office work. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.
On December 3, 2008, Plaintiff was examined by a physician who imposed a number of restrictions: lifting or carrying no more than ten pounds; sitting for one hour a day; standing for three hours a day; walking for five hours a day; climbing no hours per day; bending or stooping one hour per day; pulling or pushing one hour per day; simple grasping four hours per day; fine manipulation four hours per day; reaching above the shoulder four hours per day; and driving four hours per day. Id. ¶ 50. In addition to the stated physical limitations, Plaintiff's physicianadded a hand-written statement which read "No Street Work." Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff inserted the word "Delivery" between the words "Street" and "Work." Id. Plaintiff contends that the physician did not want him doing street deliveries because the medications Plaintiff was taking would cause him to lose focus. Id. ¶ 54.
In 2008, USPS implemented a formal process known as the National Reassessment Process ("NRP"). Id. ¶ 59. The NRP was designed to reassess employees who incurred on-the-job injuries to ensure that they were able to perform their core duties as USPS employees that were within their physical limitations. Id. Stevero Garza ("Garza"), Postmaster of the El Paso district, participated in assessments along with the employee, the employee's supervisor, and a union representative. Id. ¶¶ 58, 61-62. During the assessment, parties discuss the employee's limitations. Id. ¶ 63. The parties try to resolve any disagreements, but Garza has the ultimate decision-making authority. Id. When trying to craft a modified duty assignment for an employee, Garza considers factors such as the employee's limitations and the availability of duties that the employee can perform. Id. ¶ 64. If an employee feels that the duties assigned exceed his limitations, the union advises the employee to notify his supervisor. Id. ¶ 65. If that does not resolve the conflict, the union advises the employee to seek further direction from the relevant physician. Id. If the situation remains unresolved, the union advises the employee to contact the Office of Worker's Compensation in the United States Department of Labor ("OWCP"). Id. ¶ 66. OWCP has the ultimate authority to determine if an employee's assigned duties exceed their physical limitations, and USPS is obligated to comply with the decision of OWCP. Id.
One of Garza's duties as Postmaster is to ensure that all employees on limited-duty statusare performing productive duties within their limitations. Id. ¶ 67. While performing assessments of employees to that end, Garza utilizes a Duty Status Report. Id. ¶ 68. A Duty Status Report is a form filled out by management and an employee's physician. Id. ¶ 69. The left column of the form is filled out by management and specifies the physical requirements to perform the essential functions of a city letter carrier. Id. The employee's physician fills out the right column, where he lists any physical limitations the employee may have which could impact the employee's ability to perform his duties. Id. The form is intended to provide a physician with the opportunity to review the physical demands of a particular position and compare them against an employee's own physical abilities and limitations. Id. USPS also has a form called the Priority for Modified Assignment Worksheet, which sets out proper protocol Garza follows when looking for available positions for employees on limited duty status. Id. ¶ 71.
Garza would schedule a meeting with the affected employee, the employee's supervisor, and a union official. Id. ¶ 76. During the meeting, the group would discuss the employee's limitations and, utilizing the Priority for Modified Assignment Worksheet, the group would attempt to find a position for the employee in which the employee could perform productive work which was within the physical limitations of the employee. Id. On December 12, 2008, Plaintiff was notified that he had a meeting with Boutte and Garza. Id. ¶ 77. At the meeting, the group discussed Plaintiff's physical limitations and decided to transfer Plaintiff's duties at Sunrise Station to another city letter carrier. Id. ¶¶ 81-82. Prior to the meeting, Garza had made an initial assessment of the positions which might be available for Plaintiff based on his limitations. Id. ¶ 90. Nonetheless, at the meeting, Garza went through the Priority for Modified Assignment Worksheet with Boutte in an effort to find duties that Plaintiff could perform withinhis limitations. Id. ¶ 91.
The day after the meeting, Plaintiff was offered a modified-duty assignment which consisted of two hours of mail delivery at either the Pebble Hills Station or the Sandy Creek Station and six hours of work performing collections at the main post office. Id. ¶ 93. Plaintiff accepted the assignment and did not ask OWCP to evaluate whether the modified duty assignment was consistent with his limitations. Id. ¶¶ 94-95. Plaintiff performed work consistent with his modified duties for approximately two weeks, from December 20, 2008, to January 3, 2009. Id. ¶ 105. At that point, upon Plaintiff's request a union representative and Boutte identified duties at Sunrise Station, where Plaintiff wished to work, that Plaintiff could perform within his limitations. Id. ¶¶ 107, 109. The union representative discussed these duties with Plaintiff and Plaintiff agreed that these duties were acceptable. Id. ¶ 110. Once these duties were identified, Boutte approached Garza about the possibility of assigning these duties to Plaintiff, and Garza agreed with the reassignment. Id. ¶ 113. On January 5, 2009, Plaintiff was given a formal offer of limited duty which he accepted without reservation. Id. ¶ 121. Some duties from Plaintiff's new route were given to another city letter carrier so that Plaintiff could take breaks consistent with his physician's recommendations and his physical limitations. Id. ¶¶ 123-24.
After Plaintiff expressed concerns that he could not perform his work within eight hours, Garza instructed Boutte to modify Plaintiff's work assignment to seven hours of work. Id. ¶ 137. On several occasions in which Plaintiff was unable to complete delivery of his route within the allotted time, Boutte either instructed Plaintiff to bring back the undelivered mail or assigned another city letter carrier to deliver the mail Plaintiff could not deliver. Id. ¶¶ 144-45.
On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff made initial contact with USPS's Equal Employment Opportunity Office ("EEOC"). Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff filed suit on June 9, 2010. Compl. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-96l ("Rehabilitation Act"), by failing to engage in an interactive process to find reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff and that Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations. Compl. Defendant filed Defendant's Motion, after which Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion. Def.'s Mot.; Pl.'s Mot.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. See generally Def.'s Mot. The Court addresses each in turn.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction....
To continue reading
Request your trial