01972665
07-13-2000
Daniel Woodly, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast/New York Metro), Agency.
Daniel Woodly v. United States Postal Service
01972665
July 13, 2000
Daniel Woodly, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01972665
) Agency No. 1A-1569-93
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 160-94-8565X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Northeast/New York Metro), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On February 5, 1997, Daniel Woodly (complainant) timely appealed the
final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), dated January
10, 1997, concluding he had not been discriminated against 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 (ADEA) of 1967,
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> In his complaint, complainant
alleged that officials at the agency's Morgan General Mail Facility (GMF)
in New York City discriminated against him on the bases of his mental
disability (Paranoid Schizophrenia), race/color (black), national origin
(African American), sex (male), age (43) and reprisal for engaging in
prior EEO activity when: (1) in May 1993, his request for a change in
tour was denied; and (2) the EEO office improperly recognized his brother
as his representative and failed to deal with his true representative.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to
be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<2>
The record establishes that complainant had been employed by the
agency since December 1985 as a Distribution Clerk. It is undisputed
that the agency hired complainant with full knowledge of his mental
disability (Paranoid Schizophrenia). At the time of the events at issue,
Complainant's assigned tour of duty at the Morgan GMF required that he
report for work at 12:01 a.m. and work throughout the night. Starting in
1991, complainant began submitting a series of doctors' notes requesting
that he be reassigned to the day shift in order to accommodate his mental
disability. This request was based, in part, on the significant side
effects complainant was experiencing from the medication (Stelazine,
an anti-psychotic, and Sinequan, for anxiety) he was taking on a daily
basis to control of symptoms of his mental disability. Specifically,
the doctors' notes stated that the medication had to be administered
at night and its immediate effects were �quite sedating,� making it
difficult for complainant to function properly at work. This problem
was exacerbated by the fact that complainant arrived at work tired
because the medication also disturbed his ability to sleep during
the day. The record documents that a number of unsuccessful attempts
were made to alter the time complainant took the medication and his
physicians finally concluded that it was medically necessary that the
medication be administered at night. Complainant's psychiatrist also
noted that the �[s]edating side effects of medications may cause him to
miss a day or two of work intermittently.� In its final decision, the
agency noted that it had approved �hundreds of hours of leave� during
the two-year period in order to accommodate complainant's disability.
In addition to the side effects of medication, complainant's doctor
also stated that complainant's condition made him very vulnerable to
stress and diagnosed anxieties and fears he was experiencing about
working at night. He concluded that working the day shift would enable
complainant to �maintain a more stable emotional state and regulate his
sleep periods.� It was further noted that when the agency had agreed
to accommodate complainant by assigning him to the day shift for short
periods (several months at a time) his condition markedly improved.
On or about May 7, 1993, complainant's requests for a permanent change
in his tour of duty were officially denied. Management stated that
complainant's request for a permanent change in tour was in effect a
request for a reassignment to another bid position which could only be
awarded based on seniority pursuant to the provisions of the agency's
collective bargaining agreement. In other words, complainant could
only be placed on the day shift if he successfully bid on a position on
that tour. The agency argued that requiring it to unilaterally place
complainant on the day shift, the most desirable and sought after tour
of duty, without utilizing the seniority bid system would violate the
collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, constitute an undue
hardship on the agency.
On August 6, 1993, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint with the
agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him as
referenced above. The agency accepted the complaint and conducted
an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
requested an administrative hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ).
On October 31, 1996, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding
complainant had been discriminated against by the agency on the basis
of his mental disability when it failed to accommodate his request for
a reassignment to the day shift. In light of this finding, the AJ made
the decision not to address complainant's race, color, national origin,
sex, age or reprisal claims raised on the same issue. The AJ also
did not address the issue concerning complainant's representative.
In reaching the finding of discrimination, the AJ concluded that
the agency had failed to establish that complainant's request was not
medically legitimate or that the granting of the accommodation requested
by complainant would have imposed an undue hardship on its operation.
The AJ noted that her reading of the collective bargaining agreement
indicated that it did provide options for the permanent reassignment of
an employee when medically necessary.
On January 10, 1997, the agency issued its final decision, rejecting the
AJ's recommended decision, and entering a finding of no discrimination.
It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission
finds that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts
and properly analyzes complainant's entitlement to relief under the
Rehabilitation Act. As an initial matter, the Commission concludes that
complainant, whose Paranoid Schizophrenia, as well as the side effects
of the medication used to control its effects, substantially limited
his ability to sleep, was a qualified individual with a disability
within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m).
Once reaching this conclusion, the Commission discerns no basis to
disturb the AJ's finding of discrimination. First, the Commission is
unpersuaded by the agency's argument that the AJ abused her discretion
by issuing a decision without a hearing especially in light of the
fact that it was the agency itself which moved for summary judgment.
Second, the Commission finds no harmful error in the AJ's decision not
to address complainant's Title VII and ADEA claims on this same issue
as complainant was entitled to no further relief than that awarded him
for violation of the Rehabilitation Act.<3>
On appeal and in its final decision, the agency argues that its most
significant reason for rejecting the AJ's finding of discrimination
was its belief that the accommodation requested would have violated its
collective bargaining agreement. However, in a virtually identical case,
the Commission has already resolved this issue. See Williams v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01944389 (April 11, 1996), request
for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05960540 (April 10, 1997).
Williams involved an employee of the New York City Post Office who, like
complainant, was denied a request for a permanent reassignment to the day
shift as an accommodation for a disability. Management denied Williams'
request on the basis that such a reassignment would have violated its
collective bargaining agreement, the same agreement at issue in the
present case. In Williams, the Commission found that the complainant was
discriminated against on the basis of his disability when his request for
reassignment was denied. For the same reasons enunciated in Williams,
the Commission finds that the AJ in the present case was correct in
finding disability discrimination.
Accordingly, it is the Commission's decision to REVERSE the agency's final
decision which rejected the AJ's finding of discrimination. In order
to remedy complainant for its discriminatory actions, the agency shall,
comply with the following Order.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:
(A) Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall reassign complainant to the day shift as
recommended by his physicians.
(B) Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency is directed to restore to complainant any leave used
and/or other benefits lost due to the agency's failure to accommodate
his request for a reassignment.
(C) The agency shall post at the Morgan GMF in New York City copies of
the attached notice. 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 set forth below within ten (10)
calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.
(D) The issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs
are REMANDED to the Hearings Unit of the New York District office.<4>
Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on these
issues in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,657 (1999) (to be
codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109), and the agency shall issue a final
action in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,657-58 (1999) (to be
codified at 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 Administrative Judge's decision and the final agency action to
the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.
(E) 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 (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).
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:
July 13, 2000 _________________________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
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 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Sect. 791 et seq., 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 Morgan (New York City) General Mail Facility (GMF) supports and
will comply with such federal law and will not take action against
individuals because they have exercised their rights under law.
The Morgan GMF has been found to have discriminated against the
individual affected by the Commission's finding on the basis of his
disability when his request for a reassignment to the day shift was
denied. The Commission has ordered that this individual be granted
the requested accommodation to his disability, as well as restoration
of leave and other benefits lost as a result of the agency's actions.
In addition, the Commission ordered the agency to pay proven compensatory
damages. The Morgan GMF 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
and will not retaliate against employees who file EEO complaints.
The Morgan GMF 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 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 further notes that complainant has not contested this
decision by the AJ in his appeal. Complainant also has not appealed
the AJ's decision not to address his "spin-off" claim concerning his
representative. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 5-14 (November 9, 1999); Li
v. Department of Health & Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05940683
(August 3, 1995), note 4.
4 The Commission concurs with the AJ's finding that complainant is
entitled to consideration of his compensatory damages claim because of
the agency's lack of good faith in providing reasonable accommodation
to his disability. 42 U.S.C. � 1981a(a)(3).