Santos v. Henderson
Docket: No. 99-56904; D.C. No. CV-95-01678-TJH
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 3, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Santos seeks enforcement of EEOC rulings requiring USPS to provide reasonable accommodations, but the prior decisions did not address the appropriateness of USPS's offers from 1994 or 1995, allowing the district court to grant summary judgment for USPS. To obtain summary judgment, USPS must demonstrate good faith in the interactive accommodation process, consider Santos's accommodation preferences, and show no genuine dispute regarding the reasonableness of the accommodation offered. USPS made efforts to engage in the interactive process, consulting medical reports, identifying limitations from Santos's disability, and obtaining her job preferences. USPS offered Santos a supervisory position in Beverly Hills, which aligned with her specified preferences and was equivalent to her previous role. The evidence shows that USPS considered her preferences and provided a reasonable accommodation, as Santos did not argue that the Beverly Hills position was inferior to the Norwalk position she sought. Regarding the retaliation claim, USPS stated that the selection criteria for a supervisory position favored candidates with current experience, which Santos lacked compared to the successful applicant. Santos's assertion of being equally or more qualified is unsupported, as the other candidate had significant relevant experience. Without substantial evidence to suggest pretext in the hiring decision, summary judgment in favor of USPS is appropriate. The court's ruling is affirmed, with a note that the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation, as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Additionally, Santos's lack of engagement during the accommodation process, including rejecting direct communication with USPS and failing to provide necessary information, suggests she may have acted in bad faith.