Opinion ID: 2975084
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fitness-for-Duty Examination

Text: Plaintiff argues that Lee should not have been asked to take a fitness-for-duty physical examination. In pertinent part, Lee stated: Question: Now, you’ve claimed that you were discriminated against when you were sent for fitness for duty examination? Answer: The union stewards said that he wasn’t supposed to give me a fitness for duty. 16 No. 06-5553 Question: And do you know why they weren’t supposed to do that? Answer: He told me, but I forgot. ... Answer: Usually, they send you downtown to the Heyburn Building. Question: So you think it was discriminatory because they sent you to a different location than the usual one? Answer: You always go down to the Heyburn Building for the fitness for duty. That’s number one. And why -- they couldn’t understand why he would be giving me a fitness for duty. He’s just a post office -- a doctor that works for the post office. ... Question: Other than that, is there any reason why you think being sent for a fitness for duty examination was discriminatory? Answer: The whole thing was discriminatory, yes, the whole ordeal, and resolving and filing this. Question: So you’re saying it’s the same reasons that we discussed regarding your removal? Answer: Yes. Question: So you think the fitness for duty examination was also taken in retaliation for your incident with Mr. Jewett? Answer: Yes. (J.A. 132-34) (formatting added). As illustrated above, Lee’s allegation that her fitness-for-duty examination was discriminatory is grounded on 1) the location where the examination was conducted; and 2) her impression that it was done in retaliation for an altercation with her supervisor, Gordon Jewett (“Jewett”). Lee’s arguments are meritless. First, there is no evidence on the record to support a contention that Lee’s fitness-for-duty physical examination was conducted in a meaningfully or significantly different manner vis-a-vis other fitness-for-duty examinations. Second, the examination was requested by Altic, not Jewett. (J.A. 228, 233, 236). In August 1995, Altic “did not feel [Lee’s] light duty restrictions and her light duty assignment, were well 17 No. 06-5553 matched.” (J.A. 226) Lee continuously “report[ed] to work late,” (J.A. 227); “was not productive,” (J.A. 228); and was visibly “in pain.” Id. “Her attitude was one of wanting to do the job, but she was not able to do the job.” (J.A. 228) In light of her work performance and physical condition, “the decision was made to put her in for the Fitness For Duty” examination. (J.A. 228) On August 24, 1995, Lee’s supervisor requested that Lee be scheduled for a physical examination to determine her fitness-for-duty. (J.A. 183) Altic affirms that the “main reason for putting [Lee] in for the fitness for duty was that she was a hazard to herself as well as to the Postal Service,” (J.A. 230), based on “the fact [that] she was falling [sic] asleep and sometimes in a dazed condition, and I would often find her with her feet upon the ledge of the case. And safety procedures on the workfloor are that you always have one foot on the floor.” (J.A. 230) “[Altic] felt [she] had a responsibility to the Postal Service to report this unsafe practice, as well as a responsibility to [Lee] to see that she was not put in a position where she was likely to sustain an injury.” (J.A. 231) The supervisor further clarifies that the “goal of the fitness for duty was to get a better alignment of her capabilities under her medical restrictions to her actual assigned [sic] job duties.” Id. Altic was authorized to request a fitness-for-duty physical examination pursuant to Defendant’s Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which, in pertinent part, states: Fitness for Duty (See Handbook El-311, 343) A fitness-for-duty examination is required in determining whether an employee is able to perform the duties of the position because of medical reasons, i.e., disability, occupational/nonoccupational injury, or illness. Management can order fitness-for-duty examinations at any time and repeat, as necessary, to safeguard the employee or coworker. Specific reasons for the fitness-for-duty should be stated by the referring official. 18 No. 06-5553 A specific test or consultation may be required in the judgment of the examining medical officer. The indications will be documented as part of the report. In cases of occupational injury or illness, the Division/MSC Injury Compensation Control office may request an examination in the course of monitoring an injury compensation case. (See 547.3.) (J.A. 180) (emphasis added). It is within Defendant’s discretion and authority to request a fitnessfor-duty physical examination. Indeed, the examination is required to determine whether an employee is able to perform the duties of his or her position because of medical reasons. In the instant case, Defendant set forth specific reasons for the examination. The record does not indicate that the examination was ordered for discriminatory reasons; and Plaintiff has failed to proffer any evidence that the examination was ordered for discriminatory reasons.