Filed: Dec. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a1278n.06 Case Nos. 11-1746 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Dec 11, 2012 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk KENDRA S. VANDERLEE, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER ) GENERAL of the UNITED STATES, ) ) Respondent-Appellee. ) _ ) Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; and ROSEN, District Judg
Summary: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a1278n.06 Case Nos. 11-1746 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Dec 11, 2012 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk KENDRA S. VANDERLEE, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER ) GENERAL of the UNITED STATES, ) ) Respondent-Appellee. ) _ ) Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; and ROSEN, District Judge..
More
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1278n.06
Case Nos. 11-1746
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Dec 11, 2012
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
KENDRA S. VANDERLEE, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v. ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER )
GENERAL of the UNITED STATES, )
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
_______________________________________ )
Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; and ROSEN, District
Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Kendra Vanderlee appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the defendant United States Postal Service (USPS). For the reasons
stated by the district court, and reiterated herein, we AFFIRM.
I.
Vanderlee began employment with the USPS in August 1992 as a Rural Carrier Associate
(RCA), a part-time position in which she substituted for full-time rural mail carriers. Rural mail
carriers are unionized under the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, which has a collective
bargaining agreement with the USPS. Under this agreement, a person must begin work as an RCA
*
The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting
by designation.
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
before she is permitted to bid on a full-time rural carrier position. Vanderlee worked as an RCA
until January 1997, when she bid for and received a position as a full-time rural carrier.
In January 1998, Vanderlee was seriously injured in an automobile accident while delivering
the mail. She obtained worker’s compensation benefits and was placed in a limited duty position
that guaranteed no lifting, pulling, or carrying more than ten pounds, and only intermittent standing
or twisting. She attempted to return to her carrier position but re-aggravated the injury in January
1999. She returned to the limited duty assignment.
On November 2, 1999, Vanderlee submitted a “work restriction evaluation” form, known as
an OWCP-5, wherein her treating physician asserted that she had reached maximum improvement
and was “permanently disabled from performing her normal route functions.” Because she was
permanently disabled from working as a rural carrier, the USPS offered her a Rehabilitation Job
Offer Assignment, or “Rehab Job,” as a General Clerk with restrictions on her standing, walking,
carrying/pulling/lifting weight, bending, reaching, or twisting, or sitting for prolonged periods.
Vanderlee accepted the Rehab Job on September 13, 2000. The USPS documented this re-
assignment in a Standard Form 50 (“Notice of Personnel Action”) and adjusted her salary to ensure
that she did not suffer any decrease in compensation as a result of the re-assignment. Because
General Clerks are members of the Clerk Craft Union (which has a separate CBA with the USPS),
Vanderlee became a member of that union upon acceptance of the assignment and left the NRLCA.
But the Rehab Job was a position created especially for Vanderlee — to accommodate her disability
— it was not a permanent position available to other union members based on seniority.
2
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
On March 26, 2004, Vanderlee provided a letter from her treating physician stating that she
was no longer subject to physical restrictions and “may return to her [former] job as a rural carrier
at any time.” In response to this letter, the USPS ended Vanderlee’s Rehab Job assignment and
awarded her a full-time General Clerk position. But Vanderlee wanted to be a rural carrier again.
On April 12, 2004, she sent a letter to the USPS, insisting that she had “fully recovered from [her]
injuries and ha[d] been cleared to return to [work] . . . with no restrictions,” and asked to “be put on
a priority reemployment list in the rural craft for the next full time [rural mail carrier] position.”
Because Vanderlee was no longer an NLRCA member, the local union replied that “there is no
provision between the parties . . . for your return to the rural [mail carrier] craft in any way other than
taking the test to become an RCA and to be hired thr[ough] that process.”
Meanwhile, the Clerk Craft’s union steward — apparently under the erroneous assumption
that Vanderlee was not a member of the Clerk Craft union — protested the award of a union position
to her. The USPS responded that Vanderlee had joined the Clerk Craft when she accepted the Rehab
Job; she became an unassigned regular member within the Clerk Craft when she recovered from her
injuries and the special Rehab Job ended; and she was awarded a job on which no one else had bid.
According to Vanderlee, other Clerk Craft members — also apparently under the assumption
that she was not a member of the Clerk Craft union — harassed her because they thought she was
not entitled to the General Clerk job. On July 26, 2004, Vanderlee submitted a note from a
psychologist, Dr. Nelson Zwaanstra, stating that she was suffering severe stress caused by her work
environment and that she was no longer able to work. Two days later, Vanderlee presented another
letter, from one Dr. Bleicher, asserting that, in Vanderlee’s words, “due to stresses, which have been
3
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
going on since August 2002, [she] was having chest pains and shortness of breath, difficulty
concentrating, and difficulty controlling her blood sugars.” On August 11, 2004, Dr. Zwaanstra
stated that Vanderlee was experiencing increased panic and anxiety, and was too anxious to function
on the job; he diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.
Vanderlee stopped going to work. On February 23, 2005, the USPS mailed her a letter
proposing to terminate her employment. On November 4, 2005, the USPS sent her another such
letter, to which she responded that she was suffering medical problems due to harassment and a
hostile work environment. On December 9, 2005, the USPS terminated her employment.
In February 2005, Vanderlee had filed a complaint with the EEOC accusing the USPS of
failing or refusing to return her to a full-time rural carrier position. In November 2009, the EEOC
issued her a right-to-sue letter. In February 2010, Vanderlee sued the USPS, seeking reinstatement
to the position of rural carrier, back pay, and other damages in the amount of $300,000. The USPS
moved for summary judgment on the primary basis that — according to the letter she had submitted
from her own doctor — she was no longer disabled at the time of the alleged adverse employment
action (that action being the alleged refusal to return her to a rural carrier position). The district
court granted summary judgment (on this and other bases) and Vanderlee appeals.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Holloway v. Brush, 220
F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir. 2000). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is
proper if the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
4
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We review the facts and evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Warf v. Bd. of Elections, 619 F.3d 553, 558 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Rehabilitation Act provides in pertinent part that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual
with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity . . .
conducted by any Executive Agency.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). To prevail on her Rehabilitation Act
claim for disability-based discrimination, Vanderlee must establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that: (1) she had a disability, (2) she was otherwise qualified to perform the requirements
of the position, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) she suffered an adverse
employment action solely by reason of her disability. See Lee v. City of Columbus, 636 F.3d 245,
249 (6th Cir. 2011). On the first element, she must show that she was disabled at the time of the
adverse employment action for which she seeks Rehabilitation Act recovery. See Kocsis v.
Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc.,
97 F.3d 876, 884 (6th Cir. 1996).
The adverse action for which Vanderlee’s complaint sought recovery was the USPS’s denial
of her April 2004 request to be returned to a full-time rural carrier position. To make out a prima
facie case, Vanderlee had to present evidence that, at the time of that adverse action, she (1) had a
physical or mental impairment which substantially limited her in at least one major life activity, such
as “caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning and working”; (2) had a record of such an impairment; or (3) was regarded by the USPS as
having such an impairment. See Timm v. Wright State Univ., 375 F.3d 418, 423 (6th Cir. 2004).
5
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
Vanderlee has failed to present evidence that at the time of the adverse decision (April 2004)
she had an impairment that substantially limited her in some major life activity. Rather, at that time,
the USPS had recently received a letter from Vanderlee’s own treating physician stating that she was
“under no work restrictions,” as well as a contemporaneous letter from Vanderlee herself stating that
she had fully recovered from her injuries. Furthermore, Vanderlee testified at deposition that she
has not had any physical limitations since her physician’s March 26, 2004 letter.
Vanderlee later suggested that the 2005 termination was the adverse employment for which
she sought Rehab Act recovery but, as the district court explained, this was not consistent with her
complaint, which alleged disability discrimination only in the form of the USPS’s refusal to return
her to the rural carrier position. Moreover, Vanderlee’s EEOC complaint alleged only that the USPS
committed disability discrimination by refusing to return her to the rural carrier position. The EEOC
complaint did not allege disability discrimination by termination, so she has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies for any such claim. See Burden v. USPS, 345 F. App’x 972 (6th Cir. 2009).
On appeal to this court, Vanderlee has changed course: she now appears to disclaim her car
accident injuries and instead claims that her disability is due to her diabetes or her adjustment
disorder/depression, or some combination of the two. But, again, she has not exhausted her
administrative remedies on this particular claim. Furthermore, she has pointed to no evidence in the
record that would support a finding that either of these conditions substantially limits her in some
major life activity. Nor can she overcome her own evidence to the contrary. Neither condition,
under these facts, would satisfy a Rehabilitation Act claim. See Timm, 375 F.3d at 423.
6
No. 11-1746, Vanderlee v. Donahoe
Vanderlee also contends, now on appeal, that the adverse employment action at issue was
that she was unable to work because of the harassment by the clerks. But, again, she has not
exhausted her administrative remedies on this claim. Furthermore, it is undisputed that any
harassment from the other clerks was due to union issues, not her disability. In order to satisfy a
Rehabilitation Act claim, Vanderlee must show that she suffered an adverse employment action
solely by reason of her disability. See Lee, 636 F.3d at 249. Because this alleged adverse
employment action is unrelated to her disability, it would not satisfy a Rehabilitation Act claim.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
7
