01985638
08-25-2000
Dixie L. Tucker, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Dixie L. Tucker v. United States Postal Service
01985638
08-25-00
.
Dixie L. Tucker,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01985638
Agency No. 1G-753-0089-97
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 1998, Dixie L. Tucker (the complainant) timely filed an
appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated May 15, 1998, concerning
her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of �
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et
seq.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).<2>
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly determined that
complainant was not discriminated against based on disability when she
was put off the clock and denied light duty.
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed by the agency as a Distribution Clerk in
the Dallas Processing and Distribution Center. She filed a formal
complaint on August 13, 1997, alleging discrimination on the basis of
disability (knee injury) when, on April 30, 1997, her supervisor put her
off the clock and she was denied light duty. The agency accepted the
complaint for investigation and processing. At the conclusion of the
investigation, the agency issued a copy of its investigative report and
notified complainant of her right to request an administrative hearing.
After complainant failed to request a hearing, the agency issued its
FAD on May 15, 1998.
In its FAD, the agency found that the complainant had failed to establish
a prima facie case of disability discrimination because she was unable to
demonstrate that she was an individual with a disability as defined by the
Rehabilitation Act, in that she had not shown that she was substantially
limited in a major life activity, or that she had a record of having
such a disability or that she was regarded as having such a disability.
The FAD further stated that, assuming complainant had met her prima facie
case, she failed to establish that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason articulated by the agency for its decision was a pretext for
discrimination. Complainant timely appealed, without comment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make
reasonable accommodation of the known physical and mental limitations
of a qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show
that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9(a).
In order to claim the protections of the Rehabilitation Act, complainant
must first establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination by
showing that: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined
by 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g);<3> (2) she is a qualified individual with
a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m); and 3) a reasonable
accommodation existed that would have enabled her to perform the essential
functions of the job, but the employer refused to provide it. See Prewitt
v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981).
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 an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having
such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g). The Commission has defined
"substantially limits" as "[u]nable to perform a major life activity
that the average person in the general population can perform" or
"[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration
under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity
as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the
average person in the general population can perform that same major
life activity." 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(j)(i) and (ii). Major life activities
include such functions as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks,
walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. EEOC
Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(i).
The medical documentation complainant submitted to support her claim that
her knee injury rose to the level of a "disability" under the definition
shows that she was substantially limited in a major life activity by her
knee injury. The documentation primarily consists of the light duty
forms submitted by complainant which detail the restrictions that her
physician felt that she should work under. According to her physician,
complainant had been diagnosed with �severe degenerative joint disease�
in both of her knees, with her left knee worse than her right knee.
She was restricted to intermittent lifting, pushing or pulling, and
standing or walking for no more than 2 hours per day for 10 minutes at
a time, and was to work under these restrictions until after the knee
replacement surgery she was scheduled to undergo at some point in the
future. The record also reveals that complainant used a cane to walk.
We find that complainant was substantially limited in the major life
activity of walking.
We also find that complainant is a qualified individual with a
disability. A qualified individual with a disability is an individual with
a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and
other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual
holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions of such position. See 29 C.F.R. �
1630.2(m). Complainant indicated that she was able to perform her job
functions with an accommodation. In particular, we note that from a
reading of complainant's affidavit it appeared that she was able to
perform the tasks assigned to her by her supervisor with the aid of a
co-worker, and that she needed to rest or sit periodically as she was
performing the assigned tasks.
The agency presented evidence to show that complainant had been put off
the clock and denied light duty from April 30, 1997 until May 23, 1997,
because she had not, as of April 30, 1997, properly requested a reasonable
accommodation in the form of light duty by submitting a written request
form with supporting medical documentation. According to the Commission's
Enforcement Guidance, an employer is entitled to documentation from
an individual requesting a reasonable accommodation which would show
that the individual has a covered disability for which they require a
reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable
Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities
Act at 12-15 (March 1, 1999). Following complainant's submission of
a light duty request and the accompanying medical documentation of her
condition on May 21, 1997, she was provided with a light duty assignment
two days later, on May 23, 1997. We therefore find that complainant
was not discriminated against because of her disability because the
agency granted her a reasonable accommodation upon the receipt of her
documentation of her disability.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency is AFFIRMED.
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
______________________________
Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
_08-25-00_________________
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 The agency did not supply a copy of a certified mail return receipt
or any other material capable of establishing the date complainant
received the agency's final decision. The copy of the FAD submitted by
the complainant with her appeal shows a notation that it was resent by
the agency on June 18, 1998. Accordingly, since the agency failed to
submit evidence of the date of receipt, the Commission presumes that
complainant's appeal was filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of
the agency's final decision. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)).
3 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. See 29 U.S.C. � 791(g).
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.