A veteran postal supervisor alleges that her employer failed to accommodate her disability and discriminated against her based on age, according to a new federal lawsuit seeking damages and other relief. The complaint was filed by Ruqayyah Bobo in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 6, 2026, naming David P. Steiner, Postmaster General of the United States, as defendant.
According to the filing, Bobo has worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) for a total of 15 years and has served as Supervisor of Distribution Operations since 2024. She states that she is a 55-year-old African-American woman diagnosed with Chronic Venous Insufficiency in August 2024—a condition she says qualifies as a disability under federal law. Bobo claims that throughout her employment she met or exceeded USPS’s expectations in her role at the Detroit MI Processing & Distribution Center.
The lawsuit outlines several incidents beginning in September 2024 when Bobo presented medical documentation to management supporting restrictions limiting her to four hours of standing or walking per shift and prohibiting lifting over fifty pounds. Initially, these restrictions were accommodated without issue. However, Bobo alleges that this changed on February 3, 2025, when she was asked by three managers—Tunya Hill, Charee Jackson, and Tiffani Williams—to maintain continuous surveillance near an elevator despite her medical limitations. When she explained that this request conflicted with her documented restrictions, Bobo says she faced retaliation.
On February 4, 2025, Manager Portia Donley allegedly required Bobo to complete a light duty packet through her doctor before returning to work—a step Bobo claims was not consistent with proper procedure for employees at her level entitled to reasonable accommodations. Despite protesting this action as improper, Bobo states she was made to leave the building.
Bobo further reports that when she returned on February 7 seeking clarification about her status and pay—and presenting updated work restrictions—Donley accused her of insubordination and trespassing. According to the complaint: “Donley claimed that Plaintiff was being insubordinate, was failing to follow instructions, was trespassing at work and threatened to call security if Plaintiff did not leave.”
Subsequently, Donley charged Bobo as absent without leave (AWOL) from February 8 through March 11 and withheld compensation for those missed hours. Upon returning on March 15, Bobo found that her work schedule had been changed without prior notice; additionally, she alleges being restricted from using necessary computer systems and tools due to what she describes as improper removal from the workplace earlier in February.
The complaint also describes an incident on May 11 in which Bobo suffered an allergic reaction after being stung by a bee while at work. She claims management hesitated to provide medical attention: “Plaintiff knew from the reaction on her co-worker’s face that they were not going to help her as the situation required so she went into the office and called 911.” According to Bobo’s account in court documents: “When Plaintiff got into the ambulance she stopped breathing and was injected in the leg with Epinephrine. If Plaintiff had not called 911 herself she could have died because of her allergy.”
Bobo asserts two main legal claims: violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—which prohibits discrimination based on disability—and violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). She alleges failure by USPS management both to provide reasonable accommodations related to her disability between February and March 2025 and to respond appropriately during her medical emergency because of both age and disability status.
The suit also contends that these actions constituted unlawful retaliation under both statutes due to protected activities undertaken by Bobo related to asserting her rights under federal law.
For relief, Bobo requests a jury trial on all triable issues; damages permitted by law including costs and attorney’s fees; as well as any other relief deemed just by the court.
Attorney Eric I. Frankie represents Ruqayyah Bobo in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 4:26-cv-11121-SDK-EAS.
Source: 426cv11121_Ruqayy_Boba_v_David_P_Steiner_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
