United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 00-2475
                                   ___________

Edna H. Jokinen,                        *
                                        *
            Appellant,                  *
                                        *
      v.                                * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the District
William J. Henderson, Postmaster        * of Minnesota.
General, United States Postal Service, *
                                        *         [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellee.                   *
                                   ___________

                          Submitted: December 7, 2000

                               Filed: December 20, 2000
                                   ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
      Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Edna Jokinen appeals the district court’s dismissal of her employment
discrimination complaint. Ms. Jokinen, a postal clerk, filed this action against the
Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service (USPS) following a limited-duty
assignment from the Department of Labor (DOL). Using a form Title VII complaint,
she complained of “[d]iscrimination because of being placed on light duty due to job
related injury (physical disability).” The form provided boxes--for race, color, sex,
religion, and national origin--to indicate the nature of the discriminatory action.
Leaving these blank, Ms. Jokinen handwrote “Physical Disability” and checked an
accompanying handwritten box. She attached a copy of the USPS’s final agency
decision, which listed the particular actions she had unsuccessfully challenged in her
administrative charge (primarily involving her working conditions).

      Ms. Jokinen later filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court
struck for failing to comply with a local rule. Acting sua sponte, the court also
dismissed Ms. Jokinen’s complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that Title VII
does not proscribe disability discrimination.

      We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim, which are appropriate
only when the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. See Ring v. First
Interstate Mortgage, Inc., 

, 926 (8th Cir. 1993). We believe that Ms.
Jokinen pleaded facts supporting a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. See
29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall,
solely by reason of her or his disability . . . be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity conducted . . . by the United States Postal Service.”). Her form
complaint was not subject to dismissal just because it was submitted on the wrong
form. See Hopkins v. Saunders, 

, 973 (8th Cir. 1999) (“‘[I]t is the facts
well pleaded, not the theory of recovery or legal conclusions,’ that state a cause of
action and put a party on notice.”) (quoted case omitted), cert. denied, 

(2000). We reject the USPS’s contention that a Rehabilitation Act claim would be
barred by 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b): Ms. Jokinen does not challenge the DOL’s limited-duty
job offer; instead, she complains of discrimination by the USPS because of her limited-
duty status, stemming from a disability. We also reject the USPS’s argument that Ms.
Jokinen did not sufficiently demonstrate an adverse employment action. See Ring, 984
F.2d at 926-27 (prima facie case is evidentiary standard, which is not proper measure
of whether complaint fails to state claim).

       Accordingly, we reverse.

                                            -2-
A true copy.

      Attest:

               CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                               -3-