Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00437/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00437-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORINE HAYES,

Plaintiff,

v

JOHN E POTTER, Postmaster

General,

Defendant.

 /

No C 02-0437 VRW

ORDER

In its previous order denying summary judgment on Hayes’s

claim for failure-to-accommodate, the court specifically noted that

“[a]lthough [Kathryn] MacRae attempted to find light duty work in

other sections of the Oakland post office, this effort alone is

insufficient to satisfy the [Rehabilitation Act]; USPS had to

consider whether Hayes was capable of performing the essential

functions of positions vacant at the time.” Doc #28 at 10:15-19

(citation omitted). The Postmaster’s memoranda state that “Ms

MacRae considered whether Ms Hayes was qualified for other vacant

Case 3:02-cv-00437-VRW Document 50 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

positions and attempted to work with Ms Hayes to accommodate her

disability by searching for a vacant position where she could be

reassigned. Doc #37 at 8:15-17; Doc #45 at 7:6-8. But the only

portion of the record that the Postmaster cites in support is the

second declaration of Kathryn MacRae, who attested that she “sought

whether any light duty work in other work units at the Oakland Post

Office was available but none was at the time.” Doc #39 ¶4

(emphasis added). This evidence is almost identical to what the

court previously found to be insufficient. Compare Doc #22 ¶5.

“It is the employer’s responsibility, through

participation in the interactive process, to assist in identifying

possible accommodations.” Morton v United Parcel Service, Inc, 272

F3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir 2001). See also Humphrey v Memorial

Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir 2001) (concluding that

the employer “had an affirmative duty under the ADA to explore

further methods of accommodation before terminating” the

plaintiff); Barnett v US Air, Inc, 228 F3d 1105, 1111-17 (9th Cir

2000) (en banc) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate if

there is a genuine dispute whether the employer engaged in the

interactive process in good faith), vacated on other grounds, 535

US 391 (2002). The record simply is unclear whether USPS

considered whether there were non-light duty vacant positions that

were both available and suitable for Hayes given her physical

limitations. It is also not clear that the entire universe of

potential reassignments consisted of light duty positions. Thus,

there is at the very least an evidentiary gap that militates

against granting the Postmaster’s motion for summary judgment

unless the Postmaster can show that it is beyond reasonable dispute

Case 3:02-cv-00437-VRW Document 50 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

that there were no suitable vacant positions available. See Dark v

Curry County, 451 F3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir 2006) (stating that if

the employer does not engage in the interactive process, “summary

judgment is available only if a reasonable finder of fact must

conclude that ‘there would any event have been no reasonable

accommodation available.’” (quoting Morton, 272 F3d at 1256)). 

Further, the Postmaster has not addressed whether and how

the relevant collective bargaining agreement might bear upon the

question whether USPS discharged its duty to engage in an

interactive process. 

In light of the deficiencies in the briefing thus far,

the court requests supplemental briefing addressing both the law

and the record on the following issues: 

(1) Was USPS under a duty to engage in an interactive process

with plaintiff Lorine Hayes?; 

(2) If so, in exploring the possibility of reassigning Hayes

to another position, was it sufficient for USPS to

inquire about light duty positions in the Oakland postal

branch because, for example, reassigning Hayes to a nonlight duty vacant position would have violated the

collective bargaining agreement that was in force during

the relevant time period?;

(3) In any event, is there any genuine dispute whether USPS

engaged in the interactive process in good faith?; and 

(4) Regardless of the foregoing, is there any genuine dispute

regarding the availability of a vacant position for which

Hayes was eligible? 

The Postmaster’s brief shall not exceed ten pages and shall be

Case 3:02-cv-00437-VRW Document 50 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

filed on or before October 13, 2006. Hayes may file a response not

to exceed twelve pages on or before October 27, 2006. The court

expects that the Postmaster’s briefing will be more thorough and

helpful than in the past.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00437-VRW Document 50 Filed 09/20/06 Page 4 of 4