Edmonson v. Potter , 118 F. App'x 726 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1427
    DELOIS EDMONSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JACK POTTER, Postmaster General,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Williams D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-02-2803-1-WDQ)
    Submitted:   September 24, 2004        Decided:     December 22, 2004
    Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael J. Snider, Morris E. Fischer, SNIDER & FISCHER, L.L.P.,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.   Thomas M. DiBiagio, United
    States Attorney, John W. Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States
    Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Delois     Edmonson   appeals   the   district   court’s    order
    granting summary judgment to John E. Potter, Postmaster General,
    United   States    Postal   Service   (“USPS”    or   “Postmaster”)    and
    dismissing her employment discrimination suit alleging violations
    of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.        On appeal, Edmonson alleges
    error by the district court in dismissing her claims that the USPS
    failed to accommodate her carpel tunnel syndrome and subjected her
    to a hostile work environment.        We have reviewed the record and
    find no reversible error.
    This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo.
    Higgins v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 
    863 F.2d 1162
    , 1167 (4th
    Cir. 1988).       Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
    genuine issue of material fact, given the parties’ respective
    burdens of proof at trial.       Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v.
    Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    , 247-49 (1986).          In determining
    whether the moving party has shown there is no genuine issue of
    material fact, a court must assess the factual evidence and all
    inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
    non-moving party.      
    Id. at 255
    ; Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth
    Univ., 
    84 F.3d 672
    , 675 (4th Cir. 1996).
    - 2 -
    Edmonson first claims error in the district court’s
    dismissal of her failure to accommodate claim.1             To prevail under
    the ADA, Edmonson must prove that she was a qualified individual
    with a disability and that the USPS discriminated against her
    because of the disability.       Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 268.       Absent
    direct evidence of discrimination, Edmonson may make her showing
    using the burden shifting approach first enunciated in McDonnell
    Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
     (1973).              Halperin v. Abacus
    Technology Corp., 
    128 F.3d 191
    , 197 (4th Cir. 1997), abrogated on
    other grounds by Baird ex rel Baird v. Rose, 
    192 F.3d 462
     (4th Cir.
    1999).
    To   establish   a   prima     facie   case    for   failure   to
    accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act, an employee must show:
    (1) she was an individual with a disability within the meaning of
    the ADA;2   (2) the employer had notice of her disability; (3) with
    reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions
    1
    As a preliminary matter, the district court properly applied
    Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) standards to Edmonson’s
    Rehabilitation Act claim because she is a federal employee. See
    Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 
    249 F.3d 259
    , 268 (4th Cir. 2001).
    2
    The ADA defines a “disability” as “(A) a physical or mental
    impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
    activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;
    or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 
    42 U.S.C. § 12102
    (2), 
    42 U.S.C. § 12102
    (2)(A). The Postmaster asserts that
    Edmonson has failed to establish that she is disabled under the
    applicable law, because she has not provided any evidence that her
    carpel tunnel syndrome has substantially limited a major life
    activity. We do not address this assertion given the disposition
    of this appeal.
    - 3 -
    of   the   position;    and   (4)   the   employer   refused    to    make   such
    accommodations.     Rhoads v. FDIC, 
    257 F.3d 373
    , 387 n.11 (4th Cir.
    2001).     To establish discrimination based on her disability under
    the Rehabilitation Act, Edmonson must demonstrate that she: (1) is
    an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2)
    is otherwise qualified for the job in question; and (3) suffered an
    adverse    employment    action     solely   because   of   the      disability.
    Halperin, 
    128 F.3d at 197
    .           “An absolute precondition to [any
    discrimination] suit [is] that some adverse employment action [has]
    occurred.”    Bristow v. Daily Press, Inc., 
    770 F.2d 1251
    , 1255 (4th
    Cir. 1985).     An adverse employment action is a discriminatory act
    that “adversely affect[s] the ‘terms, conditions, or benefits’ of
    [a plaintiff’s] employment.”         Von Guten v. Maryland, 
    243 F.3d 858
    ,
    864 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Munday v. Waste Mgmt. of N. Am., Inc.,
    
    126 F.3d 239
    , 243 (4th Cir. 1997)).
    We find without difficulty that the record is replete
    with facts demonstrating the reasonable accommodations made by the
    USPS to Edmonson.       From the time Edmonson presented her medical
    documentation to the USPS relating to her carpel tunnel syndrome in
    1986, the USPS provided her with light-duty work.              She worked, and
    continues to work, as a mail processing clerk in the 030 Manual
    Operation at the Baltimore Processing and Distribution Center.                 At
    no time did Edmonson sustain any loss of pay, benefits, or rank.
    The USPS approved thirteen schedule changes requested by Edmonson
    - 4 -
    over a twelve month period of time.       While she asserts the refusal
    to grant her two additional schedule changes demonstrates a refusal
    to accommodate, she admitted that her requests for schedule change
    were for personal convenience and not to accommodate her alleged
    disability.   In addition, her request for a twelve-month schedule
    change was not completed on the proper form, and she did not first
    receive authorization from her manager or union representative in
    compliance with USPS policies and procedures.           Assuming, arguendo,
    that   Edmonson    demonstrated   that    she    was    disabled   under   the
    Rehabilitation Act, we find this evidence amply supports the
    Postmaster’s reasonable accommodation of her disability.
    Moreover,     we   agree      with    the     district    court’s
    determination that Edmonson failed to demonstrate that she suffered
    an adverse employment action such that she established her prima
    facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.                 The
    USPS’s   denials   of   Edmonson’s    requests    for    temporary   schedule
    changes did not affect a term, condition, or benefit of her
    employment.   Nor did the denials cause Edmonson to be demoted or
    receive less pay or benefits.        She admitted also that the requests
    were for her personal convenience, i.e., to accommodate her baby-
    sitter and care for her brother, and not to accommodate an alleged
    disability.    Such requests for accommodation based on personal
    convenience are not actionable under Title VII.            See, e.g., Grube
    v. Lau Indus., Inc., 
    257 F.3d 723
    , 729 (7th Cir. 2001).
    - 5 -
    Edmonson further asserts on appeal that she was subjected
    to adverse employment action because she was transferred from the
    re-wrap section, and her duties and skills thereafter became “very
    limited.”     She attested that she had “lack of instruction and
    assignment and sat with no work to do for long periods of time
    . . .”.     Edmonson’s self-serving assertions, unsupported by any
    other evidence, are insufficient to successfully counter summary
    judgment.   Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 
    288 F.3d 124
    , 134-35 (4th
    Cir. 2002).    Despite Edmonson’s assertions, she admitted that she
    was not demoted, nor did she receive less pay as a result of her
    transfer out of the re-wrap section.               A transfer in duties or
    reassignment that does not result in any decrease in salary,
    benefits, or rank cannot constitute an adverse employment action
    necessary to state a prima facie case of discrimination.             Munday,
    
    126 F.3d at 243
    ; Boone v. Goldin, 
    178 F.3d 253
    , 256-57 (4th Cir.
    1999).    Nor is there any evidence that the changes to her work
    schedule or duties damaged her future career prospects.             Brown v.
    Cox Med. Ctrs., 
    286 F.3d 1040
    , 1045-46 (8th Cir. 2001).3                   Her
    dissatisfaction with the assignments she received without the
    scheduling modification is not actionable, nor is her claim that
    the   reassignment   caused   her    to     lose   her   status   with   other
    supervisors and workers.      See, e.g., Brown, 286 F.3d at 1046;
    3
    The district court properly held that the adverse impact on
    Edmonson’s leave was insufficient to establish an adverse
    employment action. See Von Guten, 
    243 F.3d at 869
    .
    - 6 -
    Williams v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 
    85 F.3d 270
    , 274 (7th Cir.
    1996).4
    The second cause of action on which Edmonson appeals is
    the district court’s dismissal of her hostile work environment
    claim.       To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under the
    Rehabilitation Act, Edmonson must prove that she:                       (1) is a
    qualified      individual     with   a    disability;    (2)    was   subject    to
    unwelcome       harassment;    (3)   the    harassment    was    based    on    her
    disability; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive
    to alter a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5)
    some factual basis for imputing liability to the employer.                 Fox v.
    GMC, 
    247 F.3d 169
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2001).           Edmonson must demonstrate
    that her employer’s conduct was objectively hostile, such that a
    reasonable person would so perceive it as such.                       
    Id. at 178
    .
    Factors to be considered in analyzing the objective component
    include the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct,
    whether it is physically threatening or humiliating rather than
    being a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably
    interferes with an employee’s work performance.                Fox, 
    247 F.3d at 178
    .       Assuming, arguendo, that Edmonson demonstrated that she was
    4
    Given our finding that the district court correctly
    determined that Edmonson failed to meet her prima facie burden on
    her accommodation claim by failing to demonstrate that she was
    subjected to an adverse employment action, we decline to address
    Edmonson’s further assertions on appeal relative to her
    accommodation claim.
    - 7 -
    disabled under the Rehabilitation Act, we find no evidence here
    that could support a reasonable finding that any alleged harassment
    Edmonson suffered by the USPS was based on her disability, or that
    it was severe or pervasive such that it created an abusive work
    environment.      See, e.g., Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 
    510 U.S. 17
    , 21 (1993).
    Edmonson specified the following acts in support of her
    claim of a hostile work environment:            (1) her light duty work and
    lack of a chair fostered an atmosphere of resentment and pity for
    her among her co-workers; (2) the strict leave policies of the
    USPS; (3) the work place was too cold; (4) one night she was asked
    to work in a mail-handler position, and then was removed from that
    job; (5) sometimes her badge was missing; (6) her skills were
    under-utilized; and (7) she was denied a shift change and was given
    no work for long periods of time.          While Edmonson attested that her
    uncertainty about her work assignments made her feel “sick” on a
    daily basis, and that the stress of her working conditions created
    physical problems such as hair loss and joint aches, juxtaposed
    against    this    testimony,      Edmonson     also   described    the    above-
    enumerated occurrences as “silly,” “stupid,” “little stuff.”                   We
    agree     with    the   district    court’s     determination      that,    while
    Edmonson’s evidence established that she subjectively perceived her
    environment       as    hostile,   it     was   insufficient,      when    viewed
    objectively, to support a hostile work environment claim.                     See
    - 8 -
    Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 
    524 U.S. 775
    , 778 (1998) (isolated
    or genuinely trivial acts constituting ordinary adversities in
    workplace not actionable); Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 
    77 F.3d 745
    , 753 (4th Cir. 1996) (working environment must be “hostile
    or deeply repugnant,” not “merely unpleasant,” to be actionable).
    There is no evidence that Edmonson was unable to perform her job
    duties as a result of her working environment, and she attested
    that she never felt threatened. She was unable to provide evidence
    to show that her disability specifically was a factor in the
    occurrences of which she complained.          She did not satisfy her
    burden of demonstrating that she was subjected to a hostile work
    environment because of her alleged disability.
    Accordingly,   we   affirm    the   district   court’s   order
    granting the Postmaster’s motion for summary judgment. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 9 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1427

Citation Numbers: 118 F. App'x 726

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

Authorities (18)

Robert J. Fox v. General Motors Corporation, and Robert ... , 247 F.3d 169 ( 2001 )

Joseph Bryant, Sr. v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, Incorporated ... , 288 F.3d 124 ( 2002 )

Cheryl M. Hooven-Lewis v. Louis Caldera, Secretary of the ... , 249 F.3d 259 ( 2001 )

No. 98-2085 , 178 F.3d 253 ( 1999 )

74-fair-emplpraccas-bna-1478-71-empl-prac-dec-p-44985-dawn-f , 126 F.3d 239 ( 1997 )

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 114 S. Ct. 367 ( 1993 )

James B. BRISTOW, Appellee, v. the DAILY PRESS, INC., ... , 770 F.2d 1251 ( 1985 )

Michael N. Williams v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company , 85 F.3d 270 ( 1996 )

Diann Grube v. Lau Industries, Inc. , 257 F.3d 723 ( 2001 )

Barbara Von Gunten v. State of Maryland, Maryland ... , 243 F.3d 858 ( 2001 )

ted-j-smith-iii-guy-j-degenaro-frank-belloni-george-w-rimler-allan , 84 F.3d 672 ( 1996 )

Jay Lawrence Halperin v. Abacus Technology Corporation , 128 F.3d 191 ( 1997 )

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 93 S. Ct. 1817 ( 1973 )

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 106 S. Ct. 2505 ( 1986 )

lori-rhoads-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-in-its-capacity-as , 257 F.3d 373 ( 2001 )

george-e-hopkins-jr-v-baltimore-gas-and-electric-company-american , 77 F.3d 745 ( 1996 )

kristen-elisabeth-baird-a-minor-by-her-next-friend-and-parent-nancy-baird , 192 F.3d 462 ( 1999 )

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 118 S. Ct. 2275 ( 1998 )

View All Authorities »