01975404
01-21-2000
Alexander Santino, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic), Agency.
Alexander Santino v. United States Postal Service
01975404
January 21, 2000
Alexander Santino, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01975404
v. ) Agency No. 4C-190-1205-96
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of physical disability (Muscular Dystrophy), in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges he was discriminated against when, on July 19,
1995, he was informed his medical documentation was not acceptable.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Letter Carrier, at the agency's Frankford Station,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility. Complainant alleged on July 19,
1995, he returned to work from an absence, which was due to an episode of
muscle spasms related to his Muscular Dystrophy. When he presented his
supervisor with a doctor's note, she deemed it unacceptable. According to
complainant's affidavit, it was at this point that his supervisor began
a verbal confrontation with complainant, and yelled at him while on the
workroom floor. He averred that she followed him into the Manager's
office, continued yelling at him, and threatened him with a suspension.
Complainant stated that the event caused him to suffer chest pains,
for which he was treated at intensive care at a hospital.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on June 20, 1996. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the agency
issue a final agency decision.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of disability discrimination because he presented no evidence
that similarly situated individuals not in his protected class were
treated differently under similar circumstances. The agency also found
that complainant produced no evidence that his disability was causally
related to the supervisor's determination. The agency also found that
the medical documentation was not acceptable since it did not cover
complainant's entire absence.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency failed to consider a
number of his arguments. He argues that the supervisor caused him great
stress and embarrassment when she yelled at him across the workroom
floor. He argued that if the supervisor found the note unacceptable,
she should have completed the appropriate form instead of yelling at him.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Prewitt v. United States
Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981), the Commission agrees
with the agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of disability discrimination because he failed to show any causal
relationship between his disability and the agency's actions. In reaching
this conclusion, we note that the supervisor averred in her affidavit
that she was unaware complainant suffered from a disability. Complainant
failed to produce persuasive evidence to the contrary. Moreover, we note
the record itself contains little evidence that agency officials were
aware that complainant suffered from Muscular Dystrophy.
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant established an inference
of discrimination, we find the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the supervisor
averred that complainant's note did not cover the first three days of
his absence. When she explained to complainant that his documentation
was unacceptable, complainant told her that he did not need to present
medical documentation until the absence was over three days in length.
At that point, she stated, the verbal confrontation began.
We find complainant failed to present any evidence that proves, more
likely than not, the agency's reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination based on his disability. Indeed, complainant failed to
rebut the supervisor's statements, or provide any other evidence that
showed a discriminatory animus towards his disability.
To the extent that complainant alleged in his complaint that he was
subjected to harassment, the Commission notes that unless the conduct
is severe, a single incident or group of isolated incidents will not be
regarded as discriminatory harassment. See generally, Walker v. Ford Motor
Co., 684 F. 2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we find complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment.
After a careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions
on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence not
specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED
WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS
OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the
absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed
timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604).
The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the
other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you
receive this decision. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS
THE DEFENDANT IN THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD
OR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND
OFFICIAL TITLE. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your
case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
January 21, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
_________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.