Bridgett Cross v. Postmaster General of the Unit, 696 F. App'x 92

Cross, a long‑time USPS employee, developed a foot infection in 2008 that led to limited mobility and multiple surgeries; she continued working in various HRM/Labor Relations roles at the same pay grade.
In 2010 Cross requested a transfer from Broad Street (Newark) to Kilmer (Edison) and asked for cross‑training; management (Mortola and HR) denied the transfer citing no available office space and operational issues at Kilmer.
Cross filed an EEO complaint alleging race and disability discrimination; some claims were accepted for investigation and later dismissed after she elected to sue in district court.
In district court Cross pleaded Title VII and ADA claims; Title VII claims were dismissed and disability claims were limited to the Rehabilitation Act; after amendment the court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment to USPS on disparate treatment and failure‑to‑accommodate (failure‑to‑transfer) claims.
On appeal Cross challenged only disparate treatment (based on denied cross‑training) and failure‑to‑transfer (requesting Kilmer transfer); the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for USPS.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of cross‑training is an adverse employment action for disparate treatment under the Rehabilitation Act	Cross: denial of training constituted adverse action that harmed opportunities	USPS: denial of vague, unspecified training did not change pay, terms, conditions, or privileges	Denied — no adverse action; mere denial of training without tangible harm insufficient
Whether USPS had duty to accommodate by creating or filling a vacant position at Kilmer (failure‑to‑transfer)	Cross: USPS should have engaged in interactive process and provided transfer to Kilmer as accommodation	USPS: no vacant, funded Kilmer HRM position existed; employer need not create a new position	Denied — plaintiff must show a vacant funded position; employer not required to create a job

Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard cited)
Storey v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard for adverse employment action)
Clegg v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 496 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of training alone not an adverse action)
Donahue v. Consol. Rail Corp., 224 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must show a vacant, funded position for transfer accommodation)
Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584 (3d Cir. 2005) (summary judgment requires more than bare assertions)