Boyd L. Leech, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 11, 2000
01971974 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 11, 2000)

01971974

02-11-2000

Boyd L. Leech, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western), Agency.


Boyd L. Leech v. United States Postal Service

01971974

February 11, 2000

Boyd L. Leech, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01971974

v. ) Agency Nos. 4E-870-1021-94

) 4E-870-1064-94

) 4E-870-1041-95

William J. Henderson, ) Hearing Nos. 350-94-8272X

Postmaster General, ) 350-94-8093X

United States Postal Service, ) 350-94-8245X

(Pacific/Western), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission challenging the

final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency) concerning his

complaint of 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, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq; and �501

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, U.S.C. �791 et seq. <1>

The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

ISSUES PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency discriminated against

complainant on the bases of his race (Caucasian), age (D.O.B. 5/1/38),

physical disability (back condition) and reprisal (prior EEO activity),

when the following occurred: (1) he was denied a transfer to the position

of Mail Processing Equipment (MPE) mechanic, in the maintenance craft;

(2) (a) notes about complainant's work performance were left lying out in

the open for everyone to view; (b) complainant's bid job, Mail Handler

2, was taken away from him; and (3) management failed to provide him a

reasonable accommodation within his medical restrictions.

BACKGROUND

On January 4, 1994, May 23, 1994, and January 11, 1995, complainant filed

formal complaints alleging discrimination as stated above. The three

complaints were consolidated for hearing purposes. Following an EEOC

administrative hearing on August 8, 9, and September 19, 1995, the

administrative judge (AJ) issued a recommended decision finding that

complainant failed to prove that he was discriminated against on any

bases regarding issues 1, 2a, and 3 above. However, the AJ concluded

that complainant established by a preponderance of the evidence that

he was discriminated against in retaliation for his prior EEO activity

regarding issue 2(b) when agency officials denied his successful bid

for the Mail Handler 2 position.

In support of her finding of discrimination, the AJ noted that Complainant

successfully bid for the Mail Handler 2 position. Complainant was working

under medical limitations at the time, therefore, the agency required

a physician's statement regarding complainant's ability to perform the

duties of the position. After, complainant's physician stated that

complainant could not perform the duties of the position within six

months, the agency withdrew its offer for the position. Considering

the facts of record, and the testimony provided at the hearing, the

AJ found no evidence of age or national origin<2> discrimination.<3>

The AJ further determined that complainant established an inference

of discrimination on the basis of reprisal. She found that the

agency's request for medical information was motivated, in part, by

the responsible official's desire to retaliate against complainant

for his participation in the EEO process. In support of her finding,

the AJ noted that a similarly situated employee was not required to

provide medical information. In addition, the AJ found the credible

testimony of a union official stating that the Postmaster threw several of

complainant's grievances in the trash and commented disparagingly about

complainant's EEO activities was compelling circumstantial evidence of

prejudice against complainant and the EEO process. The AJ acknowledged

that it was apparent that the Postmaster and complainant's immediate

supervisor disliked complainant. She further acknowledged that in

light of the labor-management problems that existed at the Las Cruces

Post Office which transcended the instant dispute, it was difficult to

ascertain whether and how much of the agency officials' animosity toward

complainant was due to complainant's personality and or union activity,

rather than unlawful discrimination.

On December 3, 1996, the agency issued a final agency decision (FAD)

adopting the AJ's findings of no discrimination and rejecting the AJ's

finding of reprisal discrimination. The agency concluded that the fact

that complainant was evaluated by a physician who found complainant

would be unable to perform the duties of the Mail Handler 2 position

within six months was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying

complainant his bid job. The agency further explained that the request

for medical documentation is required by the Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA), thus, the agency was obligated to request such medical

documentation. Finally, the agency disagreed with the AJ's conclusion that

the request for medical information was motivated by a desire to retaliate

against complainant because on his involvement with the EEO process.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

After a careful review of the record in its entirety, including the

hearing transcripts, relevant exhibits, the AJ's recommended decision,

the FAD and the parties statements on appeal, the Commission concludes

that the AJ's decision accurately sets forth the relevant facts giving

rise to the complaint and the law applicable to the case. Therefore, we

adopt the AJ's finding as our own. In so doing, we note the following.

The AJ found that the applicable CBA required that, if requested to,

a modified duty employee, must show that she or he could perform the

duties of a position within six months. The AJ further found that the

requests for medical documentation are discretionary and not mandatory as

the agency implied. Therefore, we find appropriate the AJ's finding that

the agency's exercise of its discretion in requesting such documentation

was discriminatory. The Commission further acknowledges complainant's

many contentions on appeal and finds that they were adequately addressed

by the AJ's recommended decision.

Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at

29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)), all post-hearing factual findings by an

Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence

in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,

477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding that discriminatory intent did

or did not exist is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).

We note that other than his bare assertions, complainant produced no

evidence, other than that which was presented at the hearing in support

of his claim for physical disability discrimination. Therefore, we

discern no reason to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination

with regard to complainant's claim that he was discriminated against

when: (1) he was denied a transfer to the position of Mail Processing

Equipment (MPE) mechanic, in the maintenance craft; (2) (a) notes about

complainant's work performance were left lying out in the open for

everyone to view; and (3) management failed to provide him a reasonable

accommodation within his medical restrictions. However, we find, as

did the AJ, that complainant was discriminated against on the basis of

reprisal when his bid job, Mail Handler 2, was denied.

As a final issue, we note that on appeal complainant requests compensatory

damages as a remedy for the agency's discriminatory actions. Section

102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA 1991), 105 Stat. 1071,

Pub. L. No. 102-166, codified as 42 U.S.C. �1981A, authorizes an award

of compensatory damages as part of make-whole relief for intentional

discrimination in violation of Title VII, of the Civil Rights act of 1964

as amended. EEOC Notice No. N 915.002 at 8 (July 14, 1992); see also

Jackson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0192399 (November 12,

1992), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05930306

(February 1, 1993); Turner v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal

Nos. 01956390 and 01960518 (April 27, 1998); and Feris v. EPA, EEOC

Appeal No. 01983167, (September 18, 1998). Section 1981A (b)(2) indicates

that compensatory damages do not include back pay, interest, on back pay,

or any other type of equitable relief authorized by Title VII.

We further note that the AJ did not address complainant's entitlement to

such damages in her recommendations for corrective action. Therefore,

we will remand this issue to the hearings unit to determine complainant's

entitlement to compensatory damages as a result of the agency's denial

of complainant's bid position of Mail Handler 2.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above findings, the final agency decision is

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The agency shall comply with

the order below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:

(1) Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency is directed to offer complainant reinstatement to his

bid position of Mail Handler 2, tour one, at the Las Cruces Post Office

or a substantially similar position if that one is not available.

The agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay (with

interest, if applicable) and other benefits due complainant, pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501, no later than sixty (60) calendar days after

the date this decision becomes final. The complainant shall cooperate

in the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits

due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by the agency.

If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or

benefits, the agency shall issue a check to the complainant for the

undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the

agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The complainant

may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute.

The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the

Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled

"Implementation of the Commission's Decision."

The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the

agency's calculation of backpay and other benefits due complainant,

including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.

(2)The issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs are

REMANDED to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC field office.

Thereafter, the administrative judge shall issue a decision on these

issues in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109, and the agency shall issue

a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.110 within forty (40)

days of receipt of the administrative judge's decision. The agency shall

submit copies of the decision of the Administrative Judge and the final

agency action to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.

(3) The agency shall post copies of the attached notice at the Las Cruces

Post Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Copies of the notice, after being

signed by the agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted

by the agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days,

in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are

customarily posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that

said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer

at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the

Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration

of the posting period.

(4) The agency shall provide training in the obligations and duties

imposed by Title VII to the agency officials responsible for the instant

action.

(5) The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the

agency's calculation of back pay and other benefits due complainant,

including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the

complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a

civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior

to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a

civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph

below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407

and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the

underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �

2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

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 (R1199)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

February 11, 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 after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________________

Date

__________________________

Equal Employment Assistant

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20507

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

An agency of the United States Government

This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, dated , which found that

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

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et al. has occurred at this facility.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any

employee or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE,

COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or PHYSICAL or MENTAL

DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation,

or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

The United States Postal Service, Las Cruces Post Office, Las Cruces,

New Mexico, supports and will comply with such Federal law and will

not take action against individuals because they have exercised

their rights under law.

The United States Postal Service, Las Cruces Post Office, Las Cruces,

New Mexico, has remedied the employee affected by the Commission's

finding by placing him in Mail Handler 2 or similar position, back pay

and appropriate benefits, and training in the obligations and duties

imposed by the Title VII for the agency officials responsible for the

instant action. United States Postal Service, Las Cruces Post Office,

Las Cruces, New Mexico, will ensure that officials responsible for

personnel decisions and terms and conditions of employment will abide

by the requirements of all Federal equal employment opportunity laws.

The United States Postal Service, Las Cruces Post Office, Las Cruces,

New Mexico, will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce, or

retaliate against any individual who exercises his or her right to

oppose practices made unlawful by, or who participates in proceedings

pursuant to, Federal equal employment opportunity law.

Date Posted:

Posting Expires:

1 On 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.

2 We note that the AJ from the outset of her decision modified

complainant's allegations to reflect national origin discrimination

instead of race discrimination as she felt this change better reflected

the complainant's intentions.

3 We note that the AJ made no specific finding regarding whether

complainant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination

regarding this issue, however, from the outset of her decision the AJ

concluded that complainant was not a qualified person with a disability

as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, complainant could

not have established a prima facie case based on physcial disability

regarding any issue absent this essential showing.