Woodman v. Runyon

Decision Date24 December 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-4104,96-4104
Citation132 F.3d 1330
Parties7 A.D. Cases 1189, 11 NDLR P 233 Patricia Kaye WOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marvin K. RUNYON, Postmaster General, and U.S. Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

David J. Holdsworth, Romney, Condie & Holdsworth, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carlie Christensen, Assistant United States Attorney (Scott M. Matheson, Jr., United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

Patricia Woodman filed a disability discrimination action against the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 and 794, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment without opinion. At issue in this appeal is Ms. Woodman's allegation that she is a qualified individual with a disability, that the USPS failed reasonably to accommodate her disability by providing her with a permanent job assignment within her medical limitations, and that such failure constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability proscribed by the Rehabilitation Act. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

I.

Patricia Woodman began working for the USPS in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1981. From the date of her hiring, Ms. Woodman worked in the General Mail Facility (GMF). In January 1985, Ms. Woodman bid into the position of PS-5 distribution clerk at the GMF, where she was responsible for separating incoming and outgoing mail. During her time as a distribution clerk, Ms. Woodman manually sorted letters and later, after training, worked on a multi-position letter sorting machine.

In August 1989, Ms. Woodman sustained an on-the-job injury as a result of her work on the small parcel bundle sorter machine. Her injury was subsequently diagnosed by her treating physician as thoracic outlet syndrome and Ms. Woodman sought compensation and reassignment according to USPS policy and the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq. Distribution clerks are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the USPS and the American Postal Workers Union. Article 19 of the collective bargaining agreement incorporates those parts of all USPS handbooks, manuals and published regulations which directly relate to wages, hours, or working conditions. Section 546 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual governs the USPS injury compensation program and specifically addresses the reassignment of employees injured on the job. Section 546 provides:

To the extent that there is adequate work available within the employee's work limitation tolerances, within the employee's craft, in the work facility to which the employee is regularly assigned, and during the hours when the employee regularly works, that work constitutes the limited duty to which the employee is assigned.

Aplt.App. at 122-23.

Article 37 of the collective bargaining agreement requires that permanent assignments in the clerk craft be bid for and awarded on the basis of either seniority or qualifications. Assignments to such preferred duty positions without competitive bidding would violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement unless adequate work is not available within the assignee's craft, work facility and work hours consistent with the assignee's medical restrictions. Aplt.App. 123-24.

On October 16, 1989, as a result of her injury, the USPS assigned Ms. Woodman to a limited duty job in the mail processing section of the GMF. Her duties consisted of processing letters by lifting handfuls of ten pounds or less and other miscellaneous duties. In April 1991, Ms. Woodman was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist and arm. 1 Ms. Woodman continued to work in the limited duty job assignment at the GMF until February 1992, when she underwent surgery on her left wrist for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Following Ms. Woodman's surgery, she was restricted from any use of her left hand. The USPS subsequently assigned her to a temporary limited duty job in "consumer affairs" at the Holladay, Utah, Post Office during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Her duties involved such sedentary and limited-movement tasks as serving as a receptionist, answering phones, doing carrier check-ins, handling accountable mail, and conducting tours of the facility. Ms. Woodman's treating physician, Dr. George Veasy, approved the job assignment in consumer affairs at the Holladay Post Office and Ms. Woodman accepted it. In March 1992, Ms. Woodman underwent additional testing at the Pioneer Valley Hospital Work Performance Center. Todd Brown, the physical therapist who conducted that testing, advised against returning Ms. Woodman to a job with duties involving repetitive motion.

On November 12, 1992, after Ms. Woodman had achieved maximum improvement as a result of the surgery on her left wrist, the USPS offered her a permanent in-service rehabilitation job assignment as a general clerk in the Patchup-Nixie section at the GMF. The duties consisted of repairing damaged mail and other miscellaneous duties. On November 18, Dr. Veasy approved the job assignment. However, Ms. Woodman's attorney sent a letter to Leo McIssac, Field Director, Human Resources of the Salt Lake City Division of the USPS, expressing several concerns about the Patchup-Nixie job assignment. He pointed out that Dr. Veasy's Work Restriction Evaluation indicated Ms. Woodman's medical condition limited her ability to perform tasks involving simple grasping. The attorney further noted that Ms. Woodman was concerned about how extensively the Patchup-Nixie job would require her to use her left hand and fearful that extensive use of the left side of her body would aggravate both her carpal tunnel syndrome and her thoracic outlet syndrome. 2 Ms. Woodman's attorney concluded by suggesting that she accept the job assignment on a provisional basis, subject to whether she experienced pain on the job. In addition, he requested that the USPS attempt to identify other available jobs that might fit Ms. Woodman's medical restrictions:

We also request the Postal Service examine whether there are other jobs which are available at the Main Office (or elsewhere) which would permit Pat to work but which would require only very limited use of her left arm, left shoulder and left side of her body. If she has no alternative but to accept this job offer and if further injury occurs, we want to know all the considerations which entered into the decision.

....

I would appreciate your review of this situation and the opportunity to discuss the situation with you.

Aplt.App. at 35. Ms. Woodman accepted the permanent job assignment "subject to the terms and limitations set forward by my legal representative." Id. at 37.

On November 28, 1992, Ms. Woodman began work as a clerk in the Patchup-Nixie section at GMF. After working in this position for a period of approximately eleven hours over the course of two days, Ms. Woodman began to experience severe pain and swelling, and sought emergency medical attention at a local emergency care facility. On November 30, Dr. Kathleen Tucker diagnosed Ms. Woodman as suffering from an exacerbation of thoracic outlet syndrome, a cervical strain, and neck spasm. On December 18, Dr. Veasy wrote to the USPS indicating Ms. Woodman had reported that her duties at the Patchup-Nixie job had caused her serious discomfort. 3 He rescinded his previous assertion that the Patchup-Nixie job was consistent with Ms. Woodman's medical restrictions and recommended that she not be assigned to work involving mail processing. Dr. Veasy has since consistently maintained that Ms. Woodman should continue working in light duty assignments.

Subsequent to Ms. Woodman's failed attempt to perform the Patchup-Nixie job assignment, the USPS reassigned her to the position in consumer affairs. The USPS maintained that the reassignment was temporary pending resolution of Ms. Woodman's medical issues. On September 3, 1993, Ms. Woodman's attorney wrote to counsel for the USPS requesting information as to the status of a permanent assignment for Ms. Woodman and expressing her desire to have the temporary consumer affairs position at the Holladay Post Office converted to a permanent one. Ms. Woodman asserts she received no response to her inquiries until February 1994, at which time Steve Gerber, manager of the Holladay Post Office, informed Ms. Woodman he had received a memorandum from Jerry Jensen, Senior Safety Specialist, Salt Lake City USPS, indicating that Ms. Woodman should return to the Patchup-Nixie job at GMF effective February 12, 1994. In response, Ms. Woodman's counsel sent a letter to Jerry Jenson outlining Ms. Woodman's previous difficulties with the Patchup-Nixie job and stating: "I would hope we ought to be able to share information and all agree before a job offer is made on whether the job would be 'suitable' and consistent with reasonable accommodation." Aplt.App. at 69.

The record reflects that the USPS has accommodated at least one other employee injured on the job by reassigning her to a permanent clerical position after it became apparent the employee could not work in mail processing, even though the employee was not qualified for that position in terms of seniority and bid status under the collective bargaining agreement.

On April 13, 1994, Ms. Woodman underwent a functional capacity evaluation to assess her functional capabilities, physical tolerances, and the feasibility of her competitive employment. The physical therapist who conducted the evaluation issued a report finding that Ms. Woodman was capable of performing "at a Work level of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
167 cases
  • Douglas v. Gusman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 9, 2008
    ...v. University of New Mexico, 170 F.3d 974, 979 (10th Cir.1998) (plaintiff cannot request unreasonable accommodation); Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1344 (10th Cir.1997)). In the instant case, Douglas's testimony that he was allowed to use the TTY 15 to 20 times between May 2007 and Augu......
  • Millet v. U.S. Dept. of Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • October 18, 2002
    ...Air Force employee's handicap discrimination suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1341 (10th Cir.1997); Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d 1398, 1400 (10th Cir.1996). The Court adds that the evidentiary basis produced by Plaintiff as to discriminatio......
  • Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., a Div. of Echlin, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 13, 1998
    ...section 501 than the duties owed by federal grantees under section 504 or those owed by employers under the ADA." Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1343 (10th Cir.1997). Thus, while the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act generally are to be interpreted and applied consistently with one another,......
  • White v. Town of Hurley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • March 28, 2019
    ...is . . . qualified within the meaning of the ADA." White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 363 (10th Cir. 1995). See Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1345 (10th Cir. 1997)(describing that a plaintiff should must "ma[k]e a facial showing that reasonable accommodation . . . is plausible").62......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • Mediating the Interactive Process
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 46-5, May 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...CRS §§ 24-34-401 et seq. [14] CRS § 24-34-402.3. [15] CRS § 24-34-402.3(4)(c)(II). [16] CRS §§ 8-13.5-101 et seq. [17] Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1345 (10th Cir. 1997). [18] Smith, 180 F.3d 1154 at 1171. [19] United States v. City & Cty. of Denver, 49 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1241 (D.Colo. 19......
  • The Rehabilitation Act and Federal Employment
    • United States
    • Sage Review of Public Personnel Administration No. 19-4, October 1999
    • October 1, 1999
    ...v Runyon,1998 1998 U S Dist. LEXIS 13771 (6thCir ). (N D Ill) Joachim v Babbitt, 1999 1999 U S Dist LEXIS 11906 Woodman v Runyon, 1997. 132 F.3d 1330 (10thCir) (M.D La.). Woods v Runyon, 1998. 1998 U.S Dist. LEXIS 8745 Johnson v Sullivan, 1991. 824 F Supp 1146 (D Md ), reversed (S.D.N.Y), a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT