Matzo v. Postmaster General, Civ. A. No. 86-3516.
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Joel P. Bennett, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff |
| Citation | 685 F. Supp. 260 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-3516. |
| Decision Date | 18 September 1987 |
| Parties | Savora MATZO, Plaintiff, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant. |
685 F. Supp. 260
Savora MATZO, Plaintiff,
v.
POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 86-3516.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
September 18, 1987.
Joel P. Bennett, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Linda A. Halpern, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JACKSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Savora Matzo, a sometime grade 11 legal secretary with the U.S. Postal Service, sues the Postmaster General of the United States for his alleged discrimination against her in terminating her employment in April, 1980, for reasons attributable to her handicap, a disabling mental illness. She has exhausted her administrative remedies, and now prays that the Court award her back pay, attorney's fees and costs, and other appropriate relief under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S. C. § 701 et seq. Defendant (hereinafter "USPS" or "Service") has moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that Ms. Matzo's claim is barred by a settlement agreement reached in December, 1980, with her former counsel; that she is not an "otherwise qualified person" as that term has been defined under the Act; and that, in any event, she was not removed "solely because of her handicap," but, rather, as a result of her failure to perform her job. USPS has also, it says, endeavored without success to accommodate her handicap to the extent required of it by law. Although plaintiff reminds the Court that discrimination cases are rarely susceptible of decision without trial, the Court finds that the essential facts material to a disposition of the case are to be found in the extensive administrative record, and at present stand uncontradicted by any evidence in the record here. It will, therefore, for the reasons set forth below, grant the motion for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
I.
Savora Matzo was employed as a Senior Stenographer in the Office of Labor Law ("OLL"), United States Postal Service Headquarters, from 1970 through early 1980.1 It is undisputed that her secretarial skills were more than adequate. In 1977, at about age 34, Ms. Matzo began experiencing emotional problems. She informed her superiors and received permission to take leave for twice weekly therapy sessions. Ms. Matzo's behavior at work became, at intervals, increasingly erratic, disruptive and insubordinate, but OLL apparently tolerated the changes in Ms. Matzo's personality without comment until she absented herself for most of the months of December, 1978, and January, 1979. Upon inquiry her supervisor was informed by her doctor that she was under treatment for a manic-depressive illness.
In May, 1979, Ms. Matzo was informally counselled with respect to her attendance and performance problems, but the pattern of disruptive behavior and poor attendance continued, and culminated in an official letter of warning to her on December 31, 1979. On January 8, 1980, Ms. Matzo abruptly left the office without permission and did not return. On January 18, 1980, OLL sent her a notice to report for a fitness-for-duty examination to which it received no response.2 On February 21, 1980, it sent her a second letter, again with no response. On March 21, 1980, USPS issued her a notice of proposed removal from federal service, and, hearing nothing to suggest to the contrary, implemented the removal on April 10, 1980, effective April 28, 1980. So far as appears from the record, Ms. Matzo had neither returned to work nor made any formal response to OLL's correspondence by that date.
On May 24, 1980, however, Ms. Matzo administratively appealed her removal and simultaneously initiated an administrative EEO charge alleging race, sex and handicap discrimination, and retaliation for certain prior EEO activity. In December, 1980, shortly before a scheduled hearing on her administrative appeal, Ms. Matzo's then attorney, believing that she had full authority in the premises, reached a settlement agreement with counsel for USPS. The settlement agreement called for Ms. Matzo
Consequently, the EEO complaint, at least, proceeded to hearing and a decision.3 The hearing officer rejected Ms. Matzo's claims of race and sex discrimination, and of retaliation, but he made a recommended finding of handicap discrimination in the Service's refusal to acknowledge the causal connection between Ms. Matzo's illness and her extensive absences, and to accommodate the former accordingly.
The final agency decision of the Service, however, issued on April 9, 1985, found no evidence of discrimination of any description by USPS, including handicap, and on November 24, 1986, the EEOC's Office of Appeals and Review affirmed that decision, crediting the USPS' valid, non-discriminatory reasons as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Tomlinson, CIV.A. 05-0767(ESH).
...(Pl.'s Opp'n at 24.) But, "the ability to report for work" is "a minimal and basic qualification for any job," Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988), which plaintiff's disability plainly prevented him from meeting. See also Trawick......
-
Misek-Falkoff v. International Business Machines Corp., 89 CIV 6269(VLB).
...Arline, 480 U.S. at 287 n 17, 107 S.Ct. at 1131 n. 17; 45 CFR 84.3(k) (1985); Gilbert, 949 F.2d at 641; Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (DDC 1987), aff'd. 861 F.2d 1290 (DC In the present case, plaintiff satisfied the skill, education and experience requirements of the job......
-
Gore v. GTE South, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-D-326-S.
...Wimbley v. Bolger, 642 F.Supp. 481 (W.D.Tenn.1986), aff'd, 831 F.2d 917 F. Supp. 1573 298 (6th Cir.1987); Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260 (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 Based on the evidence before the court, it is evident that Ms. Gore's absences were sporadic and unpredic......
-
Dutton v. Johnson County Bd. of County Com'rs, Civ. A. No. 93-2184-GTV.
...with any degree of predictability," plaintiff cannot be accommodated.), aff'd, 928 F.2d 396 (3d Cir.1991); Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C.1987) (employee who missed several months of work not "otherwise qualified"), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988); LeMere v. Burnl......
-
Alexander v. Tomlinson, CIV.A. 05-0767(ESH).
...(Pl.'s Opp'n at 24.) But, "the ability to report for work" is "a minimal and basic qualification for any job," Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988), which plaintiff's disability plainly prevented him from meeting. See also Trawick......
-
Misek-Falkoff v. International Business Machines Corp., 89 CIV 6269(VLB).
...Arline, 480 U.S. at 287 n 17, 107 S.Ct. at 1131 n. 17; 45 CFR 84.3(k) (1985); Gilbert, 949 F.2d at 641; Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (DDC 1987), aff'd. 861 F.2d 1290 (DC In the present case, plaintiff satisfied the skill, education and experience requirements of the job......
-
Gore v. GTE South, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-D-326-S.
...Wimbley v. Bolger, 642 F.Supp. 481 (W.D.Tenn.1986), aff'd, 831 F.2d 917 F. Supp. 1573 298 (6th Cir.1987); Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260 (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 Based on the evidence before the court, it is evident that Ms. Gore's absences were sporadic and unpredic......
-
Dutton v. Johnson County Bd. of County Com'rs, Civ. A. No. 93-2184-GTV.
...with any degree of predictability," plaintiff cannot be accommodated.), aff'd, 928 F.2d 396 (3d Cir.1991); Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C.1987) (employee who missed several months of work not "otherwise qualified"), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988); LeMere v. Burnl......