David B. Wilson, Petitioner,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 2, 2000
03a00118 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 2, 2000)

03a00118

11-02-2000

David B. Wilson, Petitioner, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


David B. Wilson v. Department of the Navy

03A00118

November 2, 2000

.

David B. Wilson,

Petitioner,

v.

Richard J. Danzig,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Petition No. 03A00118

MSPB No. DC0432990535I1

DECISION

On July 25, 2000, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order

issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning his claim

of discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1>

The Commission accepts this petition in accordance with the provisions of

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and EEOC Regulations at 29 C.F.R. �

1614.302 et seq.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether the Board's determination that the

agency did not discriminate against petitioner on the basis of disability

(depression)<2> when he was removed from service after his performance did

not improve upon being placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP),

constitutes a correct interpretation of all applicable laws, rules,

regulations, and directives and is supported by the record as a whole.

BACKGROUND

In an initial decision dated December 30, 1999, the MSPB Administrative

Judge (AJ) affirmed the agency's actions, finding that removal was

appropriate, and that petitioner failed to establish that he was subjected

to discrimination. Specifically, the AJ determined that petitioner's

claim that the agency should have provided him with a reasonable

accommodation in the form of a delay or extension of the PIP period so

that he could control his clinical depression, was not well-founded.

The AJ concluded that petitioner failed to establish that he is disabled

and failed to show that his unacceptable performance was caused by a

disability. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the full Board,

which was denied. He then filed this petition with the Commission.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that petitioner failed to

establish that he is an �individual with a disability� within the meaning

of the Rehabilitation Act.<3> An "individual with a disability" is one

who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits

one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment;

or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g).

Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself,

performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,

learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(i).

In the case herein, petitioner's evidence of disability includes a letter

and a psychological evaluation from a licensed clinical psychologist

(LCP), who was treating complainant during the PIP period, as well as

LCP's testimony at the hearing. This evidence establishes that, during

the relevant time, petitioner was suffering from clinical depression, for

which he was taking anti-depressants. In order for this impairment to

rise to the level of a disability, however, it must substantially limit

one or more of petitioner's major life activities. An impairment is

�substantially limiting� if it renders an individual unable to perform

a major life activity or if it significantly restricts the condition,

manner or duration under which an individual can perform a major life

activity as compared to the average person in the general population.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(j). In his testimony, LCP noted that petitioner's

depression caused �some disruption in functioning.... [d]ifficulty

concentrating, paying attention...[l]ow energy levels...sleep disruption

of some sort...� and that his depression could �very well interfere�

with his ability to train and learn new material. While this suggests

minor limitations in the major life activities of sleeping and learning,

petitioner provided no evidence of a substantial limitation in either

these, or any other, major life activity.

Complainant provided no evidence that the agency regarded him as

substantially limited in a major life activity. Furthermore, while

LCP indicated that petitioner's depression may have been more severe

prior to his employment with the agency, there is no other evidence on

this point and nothing to establish that petitioner has a record of an

impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.

Accordingly, petitioner failed to establish that he is an individual

with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

CONCLUSION

Based upon a thorough review of the record and for the foregoing reasons,

it is the decision of the Commission to CONCUR with the final decision

of the MSPB finding no discrimination. The Commission finds that the

MSPB's decision constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules,

regulations, and policies governing this matter and is supported by the

evidence in the record as a whole.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0400)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of

administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right

to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, WITHIN

THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of 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.

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:

______________________________

Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

November 2, 2000

__________________

Date

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 There is some evidence in the record that petitioner also suffers from

asthma. Petitioner's discrimination claim, however, is related only to

his depression, as evidenced by his formal complaint and petition for

review.

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. 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.