Angela Vernon, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 16, 2000
01972793 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2000)

01972793

03-16-2000

Angela Vernon, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Angela Vernon v. United States Postal Service

01972793

March 16, 2000

Angela Vernon, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01972793

) Agency No. 4F-900-1153-96

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

On February 16, 1997, Angela Vernon (hereinafter referred to as

complainant) filed a timely appeal from the February 11, 1997, final

decision of the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred

to as the agency) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, 29 U.S.C. ��791, 794(c). The appeal is timely filed (see 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)))<1> and is accepted in accordance with

64 Fed. Rg. 27,644, 37,659 (to be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

For the reasons that follow, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the complainant has proven,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency discriminated against

her on the basis of disability (viral meningitis) when she was issued

a seven-day suspension on April 30, 1996.

Complainant filed her formal complaint on July 17, 1996. Following an

investigation, she was advised of her right to request a hearing before an

EEOC Administrative Judge or an immediate final agency decision (FAD),

but she did not respond to the notice. The agency issued its FAD,

finding no discrimination.

Complainant began her employment with the agency in April 1994. At the

time of the events herein, she was a computer mark-up clerk at the Los

Angeles Processing and Distribution Center. In August 1995, complainant

was placed on sick leave restriction, and, in December 1995, she was

issued a letter of warning for excessive absences. At issue herein is a

suspension issued to complainant for excessive absenteeism for the period

March 4, 1996, to April 20, 1996.<2> The Notice cited 68.98 hours of

unscheduled sick leave and 32 hours of being absent without leave (AWOL).

Complainant challenged the suspension, contending that the agency failed

to accommodate her illnesses. She complained that the agency did not

take into consideration that she was hospitalized on April 24 for viral

meningitis, recovering at home thereafter, and that she presented medical

documentation in support; she also contended that her absence for this

period was pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Also, she

claimed that the charges of AWOL were due to illness, when she was off

work from March 3 to March 12 due to bronchitis and gastric irritation.

With regard to the AWOL charges, the agency's FAD explained that once

complainant presented medical documentation for her illness in early

March, it removed the charges of AWOL. Further, her absences due to her

hospitalization and recuperation after April 24 were credited to FMLA

absences when medical documentation was submitted.<3> Nevertheless,

the agency stated that complainant's unscheduled absences from April

20 back justified issuance of the suspension based on her continued

unsatisfactory attendance.

Initially we note that complainant appears to misunderstand that

her suspension concerned the period prior to her hospitalization.

Specifically, the Notice identified the unscheduled absences for which the

suspension was issued as those absences as of April 20 and prior thereto.

Complainant was not given discipline based on her absences due to viral

meningitis and the period of FMLA absence.

Next, we address her claim of discrimination based on disability.

As a threshold matter, complainant must show that she is a person with

a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.<4> This

is defined as one who has, has a record of having, or is regarded as

having an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life

activities.<5> 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(g). Major life activities include

caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,

speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(i).

Relatively brief and transitory illnesses or injuries, such as experienced

by complainant in early March, that have no permanent or long-term effects

on a major life activity are not substantially limiting and, therefore,

do not rise to the level of a disability. See EEOC Compliance Manual,

Definition of the Term "Disability," �902.4(d). Here, complainant has

not advanced any testimony or evidence to indicate that her illnesses

were more than temporary impairments. For this reason, we find that

complainant is not a person with a disability under the Rehabilitation

Act. Thus, we find that the agency did not discriminate against her on

the basis of disability.

In addition, in her appeal statement, she claims that the agency did

not contact her and fully investigate her claim. Complainant does not

further explain nor describe what information is missing from the record.

The record contains a statement-affidavit from complainant as well as her

statement in support of her appeal. We find that complainant's complaint

was fully investigated and that she had opportunity to state her claims.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED.

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