Daisy L. Justice, Complainant,v.Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 14, 2000
01971002 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 14, 2000)

01971002

07-14-2000

Daisy L. Justice, Complainant, v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Daisy L. Justice v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01971002

July 14, 2000

Daisy L. Justice, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01971002

v. ) Agency No. 96-0158

)

Togo D. West, Jr., )

Secretary, )

Department of Veterans Affairs, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely appealed the agency's final action concerning her

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791.<1>

The appeal is accepted. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (to be codified

and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)).

BACKGROUND

Complainant filed a complaint in which she claimed that the agency

discriminated against her on the bases of physical disability (severe

bronchial asthma and allergies) and reprisal in connection with the

terms and conditions of her employment. She characterized as incidents

of discrimination the following matters:

On October 6, 1991, the agency reassigned complainant from her position

as a dispatcher in its law enforcement division to a position in its

library services division;

On an unspecified date an agency physician allegedly refused to

appear before the Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP) to explain why

complainant was returned to duty despite the instructions of her personal

physician to the contrary;

On an unspecified date, two individuals, who complainant did not identify,

allegedly refused to release certain information pertaining to the

accommodation of her disability;

On unspecified dates, complainant's immediate and higher-level supervisors

required her to perform more tasks than her co-workers;

On unspecified dates, the library services chief used complainant's

performance appraisals to badger her;

On June 28, 1993, the library services chief asked complainant to obtain a

clarification of a medical statement prepared by her physician in April

1993; and

On unspecified dates, complainant's supervisor required her to work in

areas sprayed with pesticides, which aggravated her asthma and allergies

and caused her to suffer anxiety, depression, and emotional distress.

The agency initially dismissed the first four matters and accepted the

last three. In Justice v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal

No. 01940392 (July 11, 1994), request for reconsideration denied EEOC

Request No. 05940868 (March 14, 1996), the Commission ordered the agency

to investigate all seven matters. Pursuant to the Commission's order,

the agency carried out its investigation and issued a final decision of

no discrimination with respect to the entire claim, from which complainant

now appeals.

Complainant began working as a telephone operator in the agency's law

enforcement division in November 1988. Shortly after she began working,

she began to experience allergic reactions to various substances in

the air within her work area. By January 1990, she was having asthma

attacks as well. In a letter to the agency dated January 9, 1990, her

physician stated that she was experiencing reactions to dust, pollens,

molds, chocolate, milk, and tobacco smoke. Consequently, she needed to

work in an environmentally controlled area for thirty days. Supplemental

Investigative Report (SIR), Exhibit (Ex.) C12. When complainant brought

the matter to the security chief's attention on January 16, 1990,

the chief asked the engineering department to evaluate the ventilation

system and gave orders to keep the fan on and refrain from smoking in

the operations center. SIR, Aff. B1b, p. 11. In a memorandum dated

January 18, 1990, and addressed to complainant's union representative,

the security chief confirmed that he had requested the engineering

department to take several steps to alleviate complainant's problem.

Those steps included: installing an air return to draw smoke away from

the area; keeping the fan on at all times; designating the operations

center, including complainant's work area, as a non-smoking area; and

having an industrial hygienist monitor the area for thirty days. SIR,

Aff. B1b, attachment 4. In response to additional concerns raised by

the representative, the security chief asked the engineering department

to add a charcoal filtering system and a steam coil. SIR, Aff, B1b,

attachment 5. The security chief stated that the facility spent about

$38,000 to change the air conditioning, heating and filtering systems,

in response to concerns raised by complainant and others, SIR, Aff. B11,

pp. 3-4.

On February 20, 1990, complainant's physician stated that complainant's

condition improved under the environmentally controlled conditions that

had been in place for the previous 43 days. He stated that complainant's

condition should continue to improve if complainant was not exposed to

tobacco smoke, dust, pollens, molds, chocolate, or milk. SIR, Aff. B1b.

Complainant had been on extended leave and had returned to work on

February 26, 1990. Shortly after her return to work, she experienced

a severe flair-up of symptoms after the environment had been modified

to alleviate her problem. Her physician referred her to a pulmonary

specialist for consultation. The specialist notified the physician by

letter dated March 29, 1990, that complainant exhibited allergic reactions

to additional substances, including aerosols, perfumes, animal dander,

and grass. At this time, there had not been any mention of pesticides in

any of complainant's medical documentation. It was not until August 1990,

that complainant's allergic reaction to pesticides was discovered.

The agency sprayed pesticide in complainant's work area on August 15,

1990. The heavy concentration of pesticides in the spray apparently

triggered an asthma attack. Complainant's physician reported that

complainant had an episode of wheezing after exposure to pyrethrin and

other irritants that comprised the pesticide compound. In a letter

addressed to the security chief dated August 16, 1990, complainant

requested that management take steps to ensure that residues of

chemical pesticides had been removed from the work area, and that no

further spraying take place in that area. SIR, Aff. B1b, attachment 7.

The environmental services chief, the individual who did the spraying,

stated that there was no problem in honoring complainant's request not

to do any more spraying. SIR, Aff. B13, p. 2.

The employee assistance program coordinator indicated in a letter dated

August 6, 1991, that complainant's health conditions had worsened

throughout 1991, and were exacerbated by ongoing conflicts between

herself, her supervisors, and her co-workers. Investigative Report

(IR), Exhibits (Exs.) C11, C14. By memorandum dated August 23, 1991,

the personnel chief notified complainant that she was required to submit

to a medical examination. The personnel chief stated that in January

and June 1991, complainant became incapacitated as the result of asthma

attacks and had to leave her work station. IR, Ex. C14. In addition,

complainant's physician indicated that he saw her on February 18, 1991,

and was continuing to treat her conditions. A medical note from a doctor

at the Scioto Paint Valley Mental Health Center, dated February 20,

1991, indicated that complainant was under treatment for a stress-induced

disorder, and that any change in her routine would be detrimental to her.

A letter from complainant to various agency personnel dated February 21,

1991, indicates that she was undergoing psychotherapy in addition to

being treated for her allergies and asthma. A note from complainant's

physician and an emergency treatment report indicate that complainant

had been exposed to pyrethrin between July 25 and July 28, 1991. IR,

Exs. C10, C11, C14; SIR, attachments to Aff. B1c, Exs. C12, C13.

At this time, complainant was still in her dispatcher position within

the law enforcement division.

On July 29, 1991, complainant , the facility director, and the EEO

manager signed a document in which complainant stated that she would

unconditionally withdraw five EEO complaints. Paragraph (2) of the

agreement indicates that complainant would utilize the agency's employee

assistance program (EAP), and that management would provide appropriate

assistance. IR, Ex. C12. Complainant shortly thereafter scheduled an

appointment with the EAP coordinator, a licensed clinical psychologist.

In a memorandum to the facility director dated August 6, 1991, the EAP

coordinator reported that, based on the medical evaluations that he

received from complainant's physician, complainant had a history of

allergies and bronchial asthma that had been aggravated by passive

smoke in her workplace. He stated that complainant's physician

recommended a transfer to a different department. He noted that,

although efforts had been made to accommodate her in the dispatcher

position, the confrontations between complainant, her supervisors, and her

co-workers that resulted from her remaining in the dispatcher position

were so intense that her emotional distress would likely continue if

she stayed where she was. He also noted that complainant had not had

previous conflicts over working conditions in other positions. In his

concluding paragraph, he recommended that the agency relocate her to

another position. IR, Ex. C11.

By letter dated August 14, 1991, the facility director notified

Complainant that she would be given a 90-day detail to a typing technician

position in the library services branch, pending the evaluation of her

ability to perform the duties of her dispatcher position. By memorandum

dated August 23, 1991, the personnel chief directed complainant to report

for a medical examination that had been scheduled on August 29th. IR,

Ex. C14. In a letter to the building management services chief dated

August 27, 1991, complainant requested that she be notified of any

intent to use insecticides in the general area of the library services

building, in order to prevent medical emergencies from arising as a

result of exposure to pesticides. IR, Ex. C13. By memorandum dated

September 27, 1991, the personnel chief indicated that he concurred

with the findings of the examining physician that complainant needed a

reasonable accommodation. On the basis of those findings, the personnel

chief recommended that complainant be permanently reassigned to the

position of library technician within the library services branch.

The facility director indicated his approval on that same document.

By memorandum dated October 21, 1991, the personnel chief notified the

library services chief that complainant would be permanently reassigned

to the library services branch, effective October 6, 1991. IR, Ex. C14.

In a notice dated October 24, 1991, the personnel services chief, acting

on behalf of the agency, formally offered complainant the reassignment.

The notice stated that complainant's certification of the reassignment

would be an acknowledgment by her that management had made every effort

to reasonably accommodate her disability, that the reassignment was

a viable solution to her difficulties, and that continued assistance

would be available to her through the EAP. Complainant indicated on

the certification that she accepted the reassignment offer. She signed

the notice and dated it October 25, 1991. The SF-50 documenting the

reassignment indicated that its effective date was October 7, 1991,

and that it was based on the results of the medical examination. IR,

Ex. C14.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

To bring a claim of disability discrimination, appellant must

first establish that she has a disability within the meaning of

the Rehabilitation Act. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527

U.S. 516 (1999); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999);

Albertsons, Inc., v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999). An individual with

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

a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major

life activities. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g).<2> Complainant presented medical

documentation showing that she has been diagnosed with severe bronchial

asthma, and that she exhibited allergic reactions to a variety of common

substances, including cleaners, pesticides, tobacco smoke, dust, pollen,

milk, and chocolate. IR, Exs. B1b, C9, C10. We find that complainant's

condition constitutes a disability because it substantially impairs her

ability to breathe. See Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC

Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995); Davidson v. Department of Defense -

Office of Dependents Education, EEOC Petition No. 03950135 (October 20,

1995).

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must

satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court

in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Although the

courts developed this test in the context of Title VII, the analysis also

applies to disparate treatment claims brought under the Rehabilitation

Act. Hansen v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01920621

(September 10, 1992); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d

292, 305 n.19 (5th Cir. 1981).

In general, complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by

demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action

under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination.

Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). She may

do so under the Rehabilitation Act with a showing that she was treated

differently than a similarly situated individual outside of her group. See

Ward v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01985961 (March

6, 2000); Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864, 865

(6th Cir. 1975). Where reprisal is at issue, complainant may establish a

prima facie case by showing that she engaged in protected EEO activity,

that individuals named in the complaint knew of that activity, and

that she was subjected to an adverse action at such a time or in such

a manner as to support a causal connection between the two events.

Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940764 (December 15,

1994); Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,

425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976).<3>

The prima facie inquiry on the bases of disability and reprisal may be

dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated

legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct with respect

to all seven matters comprising complainant's claim of disability

discrimination and reprisal. See United States Postal Service Board of

Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department

of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997).

To prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that the agency's explanations are pretextual. St. Mary's Honor Center

v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995). With these principles

in mind, we now turn to the incidents raised in complainant's appeal.

Reassignment to Library Services

In her affidavit, complainant claims that her reassignment to the library

services was �faulty,� and resulted from collusion between the security

chief and the library services chief. Supplemental Investigative

Report (SIR), Affidavit (Aff.) B1b, pp. 2, 25. The agency stated

that it reassigned complainant to the library services branch in

order to accommodate her disability. To be eligible for reasonable

accommodation of any kind, including reassignment, complainant must show

that she is a qualified individual with a disability. See Cleveland

v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, (1999). A qualified

individual with a disability is one who can, with or without reasonable

accommodation, perform the essential functions of the position in

question. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). Here, the record establishes that she

was able to perform the essential functions of the dispatcher position,

except when she was experiencing allergic reactions or asthma attacks,

as demonstrated by the fact that she was rated fully successful in her

job performance as a dispatcher. SIR, Ex. C8. The agency was therefore

required to reasonably accommodate complainant unless it could show that

doing so would impose an undue hardship upon its operations. 29 C.F.R. �

1630.9(a). Reasonable accommodation may include job restructuring,

modified work schedules, or reassignment to a vacant position. 29 C.F.R. �

1630.2(o)(2)(ii).

Although complainant appears to be arguing that she was reassigned

under duress, she has not presented any evidence which supports her

assertion that the agency officials who made the decision to reassign

her were motivated by considerations of her previous EEO activity or

her disability, other than the desire to provide her with a reasonable

accommodation. The agency made extensive efforts to accommodate

complainant in the dispatcher position for over eighteen months

before reassigning her. The agency spent nearly $40,000 to have the

air circulation system in her work area completely renovated so that

hazardous substances could be filtered out. When it became apparent

that complainant was allergic to smoke, the agency designated her work

station a non-smoking area. When complainant requested that the agency

not spray pesticides in her work station, the agency honored her request.

The agency acted promptly upon the EAP coordinator's recommendation

that she be transferred to a different area. In addition to the EAP

coordinator, complainant's own physician also recommended that she

be reassigned to another position outside the law enforcement branch.

Thus, the decision to reassign complainant was made on the basis of her

own doctor's recommendation, the recommendation of the EAP coordinator,

and the results of the medical examination. After reviewing the record,

we find that the agency's decision to reassign complainant from her

dispatcher position to a position in the library services branch was

consistent with the Rehabilitation Act and its interpretive regulations.

Agency Physician's Alleged Refusal to Appear Before OWCP Regarding

Complainant

On May 8, 1993, complainant filed a Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA)

request with the agency regarding four claims that she had pending

before the OWCP. Among the documents that complainant included in her

request were records from a medical examination that she had undergone

on February 26, 1990. Letters from complainant's personal physician

to the agency, dated prior to the February 1990 examination, indicated

that complainant was experiencing an acute episode of either asthmatic

or allergic reactions to certain substances in her work environment, and

that she needed to work in an area that was free of dust, tobacco smoke,

pollens, and molds. The agency physician who conducted the February 1990

examination indicated that she could return to normal duty. Complainant

sought to have the agency physician who conducted the February 1990

examination appear before the OWCP and explain the discrepancy between his

assessment of complainant's condition and that of her personal physician.

She contends that the physician refused to appear before the OWCP when

asked to do so. The record does not support this contention, however.

There is no documentation of complainant ever having asked the physician

to provide the requested information. Indeed, complainant never specified

the date on which the agency physician purportedly refused to appear

before the OWCP. This is significant because the agency physician

retired in October of 1990, and therefore would not have been under any

obligation to provide information to the OWCP when complainant submitted

her FOIA request in 1993. SIR, Exs. B9b at 9-11, C3, C12, C13, C14, C21.

We find that complainant did not establish, as a factual matter, that

the agency physician was even asked to appear before OWCP.

Alleged Refusal of Two Individuals to Release Certain Information

Regarding OWCP Claims

Complainant neither identified the individuals in question nor specified

the date on which these individuals refused to comply with her FOIA

request. The individuals to whom complainant refers are most likely the

assistant personnel chief and the agency's privacy act officer. On May

8, 1993, complainant requested the acting personnel chief to make certain

information available concerning her OWCP claims, as previously noted.

By letter dated May 14, 1993, the assistant personnel chief responded

that the agency would provide the requested documentation as soon as

possible, but that it would take time due to the extensive amount of

research involved. The information was eventually released in November

1993. SIR, Exs. B9b at 14, C21. Complainant has presented absolutely

no evidence that either the assistant personnel chief or the privacy

act officer refused to release any information that she requested.

Her request was lengthy, complex, and required many extensive searches.

We therefore find no evidence of discrimination with respect to the

agency's treatment of complainant's FOIA request.

Excessive Workload

Complainant argues that the agency gave her more work than it gave

to her coworkers. In October 1992, and again in April, May and June

1993, complainant expressed her concern to her supervisor and to the

library services chief that she was being given the same workload as

higher-graded employees. The supervisor responded that every library

service technician was doing more work, because the library service was

being given more responsibilities. She also stated that the increased

work load would serve as a means of justifying future grade increases

among the employees, and that complainant excelled in her job performance,

despite her disability. There are no indications that complainant

was treated any differently than her co-workers with respect to the

workload. To the extent that complainant argues that the agency failed

to reasonably accommodate her disability, the record establishes that

complainant was a qualified individual with a disability. She was able

to perform the functions of a library services technician with reasonable

accommodation, namely being allowed to work in an environment free of

substances that could potentially aggravate her asthma and allergies.

29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). The agency was therefore required to accommodate

her, unless it could show that doing so would impose an undue hardship

upon its operations. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9(a). Another disabled employee

stated that she and complainant discussed the accrual of new duties, and

that she believed that complainant wanted to upgrade and would be willing

to deal with the increased stress. She also stated that the library

services chief worked with both her and complainant to accommodate their

disabilities, noting that complainant was allowed to sit down and rest

until she felt ready to return to her tasks. Another library technician

stated that accommodations were made all the time for complainant. SIR,

Exs. B4 at 5, B5 at 6-7 & 12, B7a, C20. The agency has shown that it

took sufficient steps to accommodate complainant's disability, with

respect to the workload.

Performance Evaluations

Complainant appears to be arguing that the library services chief

revised her performance standards in order to make her job more difficult.

She stated that for 1992-1993, the number of performance elements had been

raised from five to nine, and that she was informed that the 1993-1994

performance elements would be made more difficult. The supervisor

and the library services chief responded, as they did previously, that

the needs of the services were changing, and hence, the performance

evaluations had to change as well. Complainant's performance plan

elements were changed in order to more accurately reflect the work that

the library services facility was asked to perform. Apart from her own

unsupported assertions, complainant has not presented any evidence tending

to show that the library services chief was motivated by discriminatory

animus in revising her performance standards.

Management's Request for Clarification of Medical Documentation

Complainant took issue with a request from the library services chief

to clarify the nature and extent of the accommodations that she would

require. In a letter to complainant dated June 28, 1993, the library

services chief asked her to contact her physician and ask the physician to

provide him with more specific guidelines regarding her work restrictions.

Complainant responded by letter dated July 19, 1993, that the physician's

instructions were specific enough, and that no further clarification was

needed. IR, Ex. C23. While complainant may have felt, subjectively,

that the chief's request was intrusive, she has not established that

the chief harbored a discriminatory motive when he made the request.

Alleged Aggravation of Disability

Finally, complainant contends that she was required to work in areas

sprayed with pesticides, which aggravated her asthma, allergies, anxiety,

depression, and emotional distress. Complainant's work area had been

treated with chemical pesticides on May 28, 1993, while she was off

from work. She returned to work on June 1, 1993, at which time her

supervisor told her that the room had been sprayed. Complainant entered

the room and had an adverse reaction, whereupon her supervisor told her

that she did not have to enter the room until she felt well enough to

do so. IR Exs. B1, attachment (4), B11a, B11b at 2-3 & 10-13, C7, C19,

C20, C21, C24. Contrary to complainant, we find that the agency took

reasonable steps to ensure the complainant's exposure to substances that

aggravated her condition would be minimal.

CONCLUSION

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

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision

because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish

that discrimination on the bases of disability or reprisal had occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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. Part 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is

considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney

concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your

action would be filed. 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:

07-14-00

DATE Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

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 The 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.

3 The Commission defines an adverse action as any action that is reasonably

likely to deter protected activity. See EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8,

�Retaliation;� No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998), p. 8-15.