David A. Wagner, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 2000
01971529 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)

01971529

03-29-2000

David A. Wagner, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.


David A. Wagner v. United States Postal Service

01971529

March 29, 2000

David A. Wagner, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01971529

v. ) Agency No. 4D-250-1071-95

) Hearing No. 120-96-5326X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of physical disability

(ankle injury), in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1> Complainant claimed that he was

discriminated against when on December 16, 1994, he was informed that

he would not be hired. The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (199)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

Following an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ).

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e), the AJ issued a Recommended Decision

(RD) without a hearing, finding no discrimination. The agency's FAD

adopted the AJ's findings of no discrimination. It is from this decision

that complainant now appeals.

The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination due to disability. Complainant is not a qualified

individual with a disability under � 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.<2>

Complainant's hearing and ankle impairment do not substantially limit

his performance of a major life activity. Furthermore, the AJ found

that assuming complainant is a qualified individual with a disability,

he failed to demonstrate that he was treated differently than similarly

situated employees, not within his protected class, under similar

circumstances when he was not hired. Complainant was not hired because

of the Form 50 that stated he "resigned during the investigation which

revealed violation of 18 U.S.C. 1920", and the Investigative Memorandum

which detailed complainant's allegedly fraudulent reports of injury,

and claims for workers compensation. The AJ concluded that complainant

did not provide any evidence that the agency's legitimate reasons for

not hiring him were a pretext for discrimination.

After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and

evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds

that the AJ's RD sets forth the relevant facts and properly analyzes the

appropriate regulations, policies, and laws applicable to complainant's

complaint. 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 regarding whether discriminatory

intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). Therefore, the Commission discerns no basis

to disturb the AJ's findings of no discrimination. Accordingly, it is

the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM

the agency's final decision finding no discrimination.

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 (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

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.