NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1218n.06
11-4140
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Nov 26, 2012
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
SHARON A. HOLL, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
Before: DAUGHTREY, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination action, plaintiff Sharon A. Holl
appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her employer, the United
States Postal Service (USPS), on her claims of violation of the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654), disability-based discrimination under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794), age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634), and discrimination and
retaliation based on gender and race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17.). We find no reversible error and affirm.
Holl was a long-term USPS employee who, at the time of the events giving rise to
this litigation, was working under medical restrictions on her ability to lift, carry, push and
pull, bend and stoop, and reach above her shoulders. Her first complaint, in March 2007,
No. 11-4140
Holl v. United States Postal Service
involved an order by an operations manager, Juan Zamudio, to push a “house truck” some
100 yards, despite her objection that the force required exceeded her medical restrictions.
She alleged that she suffered pain and injury as a result. Her next complaints involved
three incidents with a co-worker, John Holscher, the first of which occurred in September
2007, when Holscher bumped Holl while passing her in an aisle and, rather than
apologizing, told her, “You were in my way, you dumb bitch.” Holl described this incident
as a deliberate assault and alleged that it had exacerbated a pre-existing arthritic condition
in her neck, causing her to miss work for a month due to pain. When she returned to work
in October 2007, she told Zamudio that she was precluded from driving while taking pain
medication and requested that USPS provide her with transportation to and from work and
with rest breaks. Zamudio denied the requests informally but provided Holl with a form to
make a formal request for accommodations. She did not pursue the matter farther, but she
did stop working and did not return to work until July 2008, some 10 months later. On her
return, Holl continued to complain that Holscher was “harassing” her, saying that she had
seen him in her area in August 2008 and again in November 2008, when he held a door
open for her to “intimidate” her. At about that same time, she requested FMLA leave due
to migraine headaches and an eye infection but was informed by the FMLA coordinator
that she had not worked the requisite number of hours in the previous 12 months to qualify
for FMLA leave.
Holl filed an EEOC complaint in December 2008, alleging discrimination based on
her age, gender, and race. She also claimed that she had been subjected to a hostile work
-2-
No. 11-4140
Holl v. United States Postal Service
environment as a result of Holscher’s harassment; that management had failed to remedy
the harassment; that she had been denied reasonable accommodation for a disability; and
that her request for FMLA leave had been wrongfully denied. The EEOC found no
discrimination and issued a right-to-sue letter. In her subsequent complaint in district court,
Holl claimed that Zamudio’s order to work outside her medical restrictions violated the
Rehabilitation Act and represented “reverse race discrimination”; that she was subject to
age and gender discrimination when management failed to discipline Holscher as a result
of the “bumping incident”; and that she had been subjected to retaliation and a hostile work
environment. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who reviewed each claim in
detail and recommended that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted,
observing that:
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to present anything more than her own
conclusory allegations in support of her claims. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to
create any genuine issue of material fact because the most critical
allegations are refuted by evidence filed of record. Conclusory allegations,
standing alone, are insufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial.
The district court followed the magistrate judge’s recommendation, finding that Holl
had failed to satisfy the requirements to establish disability under the Rehabilitation Act;
failed to prove a prima facie case of gender discrimination or hostile work environment;
failed to exhaust her accommodations claim administratively; failed to establish eligibility
in connection with her request for FMLA leave or that denial of the request had been
motivated by retaliation; and failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
-3-
No. 11-4140
Holl v. United States Postal Service
The district court also reviewed the record de novo in light of the cases cited by the plaintiff
in her objections to the magistrate judge’s report and concluded that “the Magistrate Judge
ha[d] accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the
particular facts of this case.”
Our review of the record leads us to the same conclusion, and we therefore AFFIRM
the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendant.
-4-