Ann O'Connell, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast/New York Metro Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 2000
01985199 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)

01985199

03-29-2000

Ann O'Connell, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast/New York Metro Region), Agency.


Ann O'Connell v. United States Postal Service

01985199

March 29, 2000

Ann O'Connell, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985199

v. ) Agency No. 1A117113796

) Hearing No. 160-97-8306X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Northeast/New York Metro Region), )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1> The appeal is

accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the FAD.

Complainant, a Letter Carrier at the agency's Merrick, New York, facility,

claims that she was subjected to disparate treatment on the bases of sex

(female) and age (7/15/49), and by the agency's failure to accommodate

her physical disability (left heel spur) as evidenced by the following

incidents:

(1) On June 3, 1996, she was issued a Listen Letter of Warning<2> for

work deficiencies citing unauthorized expansion of street time/request

for excessive auxiliary assistance on two dates in May 1996;

(2) On June 18, 1996, she was issued a Listen Seven Day Letter of

Warning in Lieu of Suspension for work deficiencies citing failure to

follow instructions (unauthorized expansion of street time/request for

excessive auxiliary assistance) and deviation from route (unauthorized

lunch break at home); and,

(3) On June 25, 1996, she was issued a Listen Seven Day Letter of

Warning in Lieu of Suspension for work deficiencies citing unauthorized

expansion of street time /request for excessive auxiliary assistance

(buying stamps during street time and extending lunch break) and failure

to follow directions (failure to return keys and account receipts).

Complainant contends that management officials discipline female

workers more harshly and more often than the male workers, for the

same infractions, and that the accommodations that she was given for

her left foot condition (a stool for casing mail, and a restricted

amount of walking) were ones she would have been entitled to even

without a disability claim. She also claims that the cited incidents

of unauthorized expansion of street time/request for excessive auxiliary

assistance would not have occurred had the agency more fully accommodated

her foot disorder, apparently suggesting that she should have been

permitted to expand her street time and request auxiliary assistance

at will.

Believing that she was a victim of discrimination, complainant filed

a formal EEO complaint with the agency on September 9, 1996. At the

conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the

investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a recommended decision (RD) without a hearing,

finding no discrimination.

The AJ concluded that even if complainant established a prima facie

case of sex or age discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions by identifying complainant's

specific work deficiencies. The AJ further found that complainant failed

to present sufficient evidence to show that these reasons were a mere

pretext for discrimination, finding that complainant's many arguments

were not supported by persuasive corroborative evidence and that she

failed to demonstrate a discriminatory motive on the part of management

regarding any of these actions on the basis of sex or age.

Additionally, the AJ also concluded that even if complainant established

a prima facie case of disability discrimination,<3> she failed to present

sufficient evidence to show that the agency failed to accommodate her

foot disorder, finding instead that the workplace modifications given to

complainant were consistent with her physician's instructions. The AJ

also found that the alleged "failure to accommodate" played no role

in those workplace deficiencies for which complainant was disciplined.

In other words, even if the agency had a duty to provide an accommodation

to complainant for her left foot disorder under the Rehabilitation Act,

the AJ determined that the agency satisfied this duty when it provided

her with a stool and restricted walking, and that these modifications were

sufficient to allow her to perform her assignments without incurring the

deficiencies at issue. The AJ further found that complainant failed to

present evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of agency officials

regarding her disability claim.

The FAD adopted the RD. On appeal, the agency requests that we affirm

its FAD. Complainant restates many of her arguments, also contending that

she established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, suggesting that

two male co-workers were disciplined right after her in order to cover up

the discrimination. Although complainant was able to document the timing

of this discipline, we find that assigning this motive to the action in

question is much too speculative. Moreover, in as much as the AJ assumed

that complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, we

find that she then appropriately focused on whether complainant presented

sufficient evidence to prove pretext. See U.S. Postal Board of Governors

v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983) and Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,

438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Complainant also contends that the discipline

at issue was given without the benefit of a prior discussion, and that

her supervisor failed to support her (by standing up to the Postmaster

in her behalf and having the discipline canceled), but asserts that this

was the result of mismanagement, and not discrimination. Again, we find

that these arguments are not pertinent to the instant determination.

Additionally, for the first time on appeal, complainant contends that

male workers are treated more favorably than female workers in terms

of lunch break sites. However, we note that this issue has not been

investigated, and is not appropriately before us at this time.

The Commission finds that the AJ's decision properly summarized the

relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,

and laws. We note that complainant failed to present sufficient evidence

that any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus

toward complainant's sex, age, or disability. Moreover, we agree with

the AJ that the workplace modifications afforded complainant where

consistent with those requested by her physician, and find that it is

wholly irrelevant that complainant might have been entitled to these

modifications without having a medical need for them. Given that her

workplace modifications were consistent with her medical restrictions,

we also agree with the AJ that impediments associated with her left foot

disorder were not a factor in her cited work deficiencies. We discern no

basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, 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); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. � 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

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:

March 29, 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:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

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.

2Complainant's postal facility was participating in a "Listen" program

to encourage the management and workers to discuss disputes, and for

discipline to be corrective and not punitive.

3The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination

by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,

the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints

of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's

website: www.eeoc.gov.