Ella Roberts, Complainant,v.Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 18, 2000
01970727 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 18, 2000)

01970727

09-18-2000

Ella Roberts, Complainant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.


Ella Roberts, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01970727

v. ) Agency No. 4-96-062

)

Rodney E. Slater, )

Secretary, )

U.S. Department of Transportation )

(Federal Aviation Administration), )

Agency. ) ____________________________________)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had

not discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., and Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.

The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to

be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUES PRESENTED

Whether complainant has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that she was discriminated against:

on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female) and reprisal

(prior EEO activity) when on September 17, 1995, she was removed from

her alternate work schedule (AWS) while a similarly situated White male

was allowed to work on an AWS;

on the bases of her physical (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) and mental

(depression and stress) disability and/or in retaliation for prior EEO

activity when her requests for reasonable accommodation were denied,

and when she was subjected to a hostile work environment by being forced

to continue working with an allegedly difficult employee.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 1996, complainant, the Assistant Manager of Programs,

Great Lakes Region, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the agency

discriminated against her as referenced above. The agency accepted and

investigated the complaint. At the conclusion of the investigation,

complainant requested an immediate final agency decision (FAD).

On September 27, 1996, the agency issued a FAD finding no discrimination.

It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

The record reveals that complainant has worked in her present

position as Assistant Manager of Programs (AMP) since March 9, 1991.

She previously worked as an Area Supervisor (AS) from 1989 until 1991.

Complainant alleged in her complaint and affidavit that she suffers from a

condition called Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) which was triggered

in 1983 when she was exposed to paint fumes in the work environment.

Complainant averred that when she is exposed to fragrances such as

perfumes, she becomes ill by contracting respiratory infections, which

require her to go on sick leave and take prescription medications.

Furthermore, her illness manifests itself by causing her to tear,

lose her voice, gag, and suffer from headaches. She claims that

her condition has worsened over the years, and that she must work in

a fragrance free environment. Other evidence in the record includes

medical documentation from physicians describing the effects of her MCS.

One physician remarked that over the 1996 year, complainant was seen in

his office for problems associated with MCS eighteen times.

Complainant's allegations center around the agency's failure to

accommodate her need for a fragrance free environment. Complainant

averred that her prior supervisor refrained from wearing fragrances in her

presence, and also advised her when chemicals would be on site in advance.

However, complainant alleges that the current Air Traffic Manager

(ATM) (African-American female, no disability, no prior EEO activity),

although aware of her condition, refused to stop wearing fragrances in

her presence, and has failed to accommodate her disability.

Complainant claims she alerted the ATM to her MCS in April 1994,

and requested that employees refrain from wearing fragrances in her

presence. In June 1994, complainant presented the ATM with a note from

her physician which stated that she suffered from severe allergies

and that she should avoid fragrances. Complainant concedes that the

ATM issued a memorandum in August 1995, requesting employees to refrain

from wearing perfume in complainant's presence, although the ATM herself

continued to wear perfume, which, according to complainant, contributed

to a hostile work environment. Following a November 1994 request for

an air filter, she received such from the Assistant Air Traffic Manager

(AATM)(African-American male, no disability, no prior EEO activity),

which he brought in from his home, without the benefit of its supplies.

Documentary and testimonial evidence in the record reveals that beginning

in September 1994, an acrimonious relationship existed between complainant

and a Training Specialist (TS), who was

complainant's subordinate.<1> Complainant testified that this

relationship contributed to her stress and depression.

In April 1995, the ATM implemented a revitalization plan which involved

rotating Area Supervisors (AS) into complainant's position, as well as

rotating complainant into AS positions for 120-day details. According to

the ATM, the purpose of this plan was to �support continued development of

and proficiency of supervisors and staff specialists.�<2> ROI at ex. 5.

After complainant was notified of her impending detail to an AS position,

complainant became concerned about whether her MCS would be accommodated.

Therefore, she spoke with the AATM, who requested medical documentation.

Complainant testified that she presented him with documentation on May 10,

1995, which said that complainant suffered from acute sinusitis brought

on by an allergy to fragrances.

On May 14, 1995, complainant was detailed to an AS position pursuant to

the revitalization plan. Between May 28, 1995 and July 1995, another

individual was detailed into complainant's position as AMP. On May

17, 1995, due to the stress she experienced at the time surrounding

the supervision of the TS, and soon after she was notified about her

impending detail, complainant was diagnosed as suffering from depression.

In August 1995, complainant's psychologist wrote that complainant suffers

from an adjustment disorder with depressed features, and complained of

excessive crying, trouble sleeping, and has little energy or motivation.

He prescribed her with anti-depressant medication. Soon after her

diagnosis, complainant notified the ATM of the diagnosis and prescription

medication she was taking.

The record reveals that throughout the summer months, complainant spent

the majority of time on sick leave until approximately September 1995,

instead of on the detail. She testified that she became stressed and

depressed at the thought of the detail assignment. Complainant also

stated she was embarrassed due to the manner in which the agency told

her about the detail, that being, in front of her co-workers, without

advance notice. Complainant testified that she believed the detail was a

demotion, in light of her prior experience working as an Area Supervisor.

In addition, complainant believed management was targeting her and failing

to address her concerns with respect to the TS, and her disabilities.

Also during this time, complainant alleged that the ATM decided to

move complainant into the same office as the TS, and required that

complainant maintain a medical clearance for operational currency.<3>

As a result of the above, in June 1995, complainant filed a grievance

over her reassignment. Also, complainant testified on behalf of another

individual, who also suffered from MCS, and had filed an EEO complaint.

Complainant returned to work in September 1995. Upon her return,

complainant learned she was removed from the Alternate Work Schedule

(AWS). At that time, complainant's psychiatrist noted that although

complainant has improved somewhat, her return to work in September 1995

�produced a full recrudescence of [complainant's] symptoms.� ROI at

ex. 5.

In August 1995, management required that all employees discontinue

working the Alternate Work Schedule (AWS). Although complainant was

removed from her AWS when she returned from sick leave in September 1995,

she maintained that the Assistant Manager for Automation (Caucasian

male, no disability, no prior EEO activity) was permitted to continue

working the AWS, as was another AS (African-American male, no prior EEO,

no disability). Complainant averred that she was capable of completing

her work while on the AWS, but that she was removed from the AWS by the

ATM and AATM who claimed that there was a need to restore continuity.

On October 2, 1995, complainant wrote the ATM and AATM about her MCS,

and also submitted medical documentation from her physician, which

stated that she suffered from significant nasal allergies which caused

extreme sensitivity to environmental odors such as perfume and tobacco.

Furthermore, complainant's physician recommended that complainant have

a high quality air cleaner in her office in order for her to tolerate

particles in the air. In her letter, complainant referenced her previous

requests for an air purifier and fragrance free environment, and noted

that her disability had not been accommodated.

On November 7, 1995, complainant received a memorandum from the ATM,

in which she proposed that complainant be permanently reassigned

or terminated from her position as AMP. The memo also acknowledged

complainant's June 1995 grievance, as well as the fact that she had

been out on sick leave and that she was taking prescription medication.

In her complaint, complainant alleged that at this time, the ATM told her

the action was being taken because �she was �not loyal to management.�

Complaint at p. 3. No actions pursuant to the memorandum were ultimately

taken.

On November 20, 1995, the AATM responded to complainant's request for an

accommodation by requesting that she submit detailed medical information,

which included a diagnosis, prognosis, list of medications, explanation

of the impact of medical condition on complainant's health, as well as

information which may indicate whether complainant may be expected to

suffer any incapacitation from the impairment. On December 15, 1995,

complainant requested a 45-day extension for the medical documentation

requested by the agency. Her request was later granted. Thereafter,

on March 6, 1996, the agency notified complainant that as they had

not received the documentation, there would be no further decision

rendered on the issue of complainant's request for an accommodation.

This complaint followed.

Final Agency Decision

In its final decision, the agency found that complainant failed

to establish that she was an individual with a disability with

respect to either her MCS or depression, in that she failed to show

how either impairment substantially limited a major life activity.

Assuming that complainant was a qualified person with a disability,

the agency found that complainant failed to show that her conditions

could be accommodated. Although management was aware of complainant's

requests for a fragrance free environment, air purifier, and relief

from supervising the TS in order to alleviate her depression, the

agency found that complainant failed to respond to the November 20,

1995 request for medical documentation. According to the agency,

such information was necessary in order to make a determination as to

the extent of complainant's chemical sensitivity condition and need for

an accommodation. The agency also found that complainant failed to show

that it denied her an accommodation in reprisal for filing the June 1995

grievance.

As for her other bases, the agency found that complainant failed to

establish that she was discriminated against as alleged. Assuming that

complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the

bases of race, sex and reprisal when her AWS was removed upon her return

from sick leave in September 1995, the agency found it had articulated

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which complainant

failed to prove were pretext for discrimination. Specifically, management

officials testified that complainant was removed from her AWS in order

for her to maintain continuity within the departments which her position

oversaw. Although others were permitted to stay on their AWS, the agency

maintained that the comparatives were able to accomplish their unit's

mission and ensure watch coverage, whereas complainant was not.

With respect to complainant's claim of a hostile environment based on

disability and reprisal, complainant alleged that the following incidents

constituted a hostile working environment: (a) supervision of the

allegedly difficult employee, the TS; (b) detail to the AS position; (c)

the handling of her June 1995 grievance; (d) a plan to move complainant

from her office to an office shared by the TS; (e) the removal of her AWS

in September 1995; (f) the imposition of a requirement for her position

to maintain a medical clearance for operational currency at which time

complainant was taking a disqualifying medication for stress; and (g)

the November 1995 memorandum detailing the plan to permanently reassign

her, or to terminate her.

In its decision, the agency found that complainant failed to establish

a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, in that she failed

to show that most of the incidents alleged, with the exception of one,

were as a result of her disability. However, the agency did find that

complainant's allegation relating to her proposed permanent reassignment

or termination in November 1995 was in fact related to her disability, in

that the November 1995 memorandum specifically referenced complainant's

illness, sick leave, and disqualifying medication as related to the

proposed actions. The agency also found that complainant had established

a prima facie case with respect to her claim of a hostile environment

based on reprisal. Specifically, the agency found that the agency knew

complainant had engaged in prior EEO activities; indeed, the agency

acknowledged there was no dispute as to the fact that complainant

had requested reasonable accommodations in May 1994, August 1994,

and October 1995, as well as when she filed a grievance in June 1995.

Furthermore, the agency found that the totality of the actions alleged

by complainant as creating a hostile work environment were sufficiently

severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment.

The agency then analyzed whether it had articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the incidents complainant alleged

constituted a hostile work environment. Specifically, the ATM testified

that complainant was detailed to the AS position in May 1995 according to

a facility revitalization plan wherein Area Supervisors would rotate on

120-day details into complainant's position which would �facilitate closer

supervision from the AATM and provide an opportunity for [complainant]

to gain and enhance skills and abilities necessary to effectively function

in a challenging supervisory capacity.� ROI at ex. 5. However, the ATM

testified that the plan never materialized. Furthermore, complainant did

not serve her detail as an AS because she went out on sick leave due to

a stress related illness from May until September 1995. With respect

to the removal of complainant's AWS, the ATM and the AATM testified that

complainant's AWS was removed because of a need to restore �continuity�

of the two departments supervised by complainant. As the AATM and the ATM

testified, the imposition of the medical clearance requirement was imposed

as a result of the facility's revitalization plan. Finally, the agency

explained that the plan to move complainant into the office with the TS,

as well as the plan to reassign permanently or terminate complainant

pursuant to the November 1995 memo, did not ultimately occur.

The agency found that complainant had failed to prove, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that the agency's reasons for these actions were

pretext for discrimination. It is from this decision that complainant

now appeals.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, complainant contends that her MCS is a disability and that

the agency failed to accommodate her. Furthermore, complainant contends

that the ATM created a hostile work environment by refusing to stop

wearing perfume, and in fact kept a bottle of perfume on her desk as a

symbol of her refusal. Complainant also argued that the agency failed

to show that the removal of the TS from complainant's supervision or a

fragrance free environment would cause an undue hardship. In response to

complainant's appeal, the agency argues that complainant failed to appeal

the remaining issues in her complaint, and that complainant's appeal

only deals with her alleged disabilities. The agency also maintains

that complainant is not an individual with a disability and that she

failed to submit appropriate documentation when requested. Furthermore,

despite its conclusion to the contrary in its FAD, the agency now argues

that complainant's allegations regarding the hostile work environment

were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her work

environment.

On December 6, 1996, the Commission received further information

from complainant entitled, �Complainant's Brief in Opposition to the

Agency's Motion to Dismiss.� Therein, complainant argued that she had

presented sufficient information of her MCS, as well as her requests for

accommodations. Furthermore, complainant submits medical documentation

from her physicians detailing the effects of MCS. Complainant also

submits further documentation from her Department of Labor Notice of

Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of Pay. These documents

were not contained in the investigatory record and are dated from March

1996 through February 1997. In response, the agency argues that the

regulations do not provide for a reply brief, and even if they did,

such documents are too late, and should therefore not be considered by

the Commission.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Discrimination Based on Disability

As a threshold matter, complainant bears the burden to establish that she

is a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the

Rehabilitation Act.<4> 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). A "qualified" individual

with a disability is one who satisfies the requirements for the employment

position he/she holds or desires and can perform the essential functions

of that position with or without reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. �

1630.2(m).

(A) Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Based on the entire record before us, we find that complainant is

an individual with a disability, MCS, in that she has an impairment

which substantially limits a major life activity, breathing. Here, the

cumulative medical evidence reveals that complainant is substantially

limited in her overall health and ability to breath when she comes into

contact with fragrances and other chemical fumes. For complainant, fumes

which would not significantly affect an average person in society are a

substantial problem. Specifically, complainant suffers from wheezing,

reoccurrence of sinusitis and bronchitis, coughing, tearing, sneezing,

and chest congestion when she comes into contact with fragrances, jet

and paint fumes. The effects of her disability has required dozens

of appointments with her physician. Witnesses testified that when

complainant came into contact with fragrances or paint fumes she had

trouble breathing, coughed, and suffered problems with her voice.

Furthermore, complainant's physician reports that recovery from

the effects of fumes for complainant may take weeks to complete.

See e.g. Carl v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01985333 (March

19, 1999) (severe allergic anaphylactic reactions due to a variety of

chemicals substantially limited major life activity of working); Scalese

v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Petition No. 03960050 (July 10, 1996)

(individual with MCS substantially limited in major life activity of

working, but not a qualified person with a disability in that he could

not show that he could perform the essential functions of the job with

or without an accommodation).

Complainant must also show that she is a qualified person with a

disability. A qualified individual with a disability is one who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions

of the position in question and meets the experience and/or educational

requirements for the position. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(m). Here, there is

no dispute that complainant is qualified in that the ATM testified that

complainant is an exceptional employee. Furthermore there is no dispute

that management officials knew of complainant's impairment when it took

the alleged actions against her.

Depression

With respect to complainant's claim of disability discrimination based on

depression, we agree with the agency that complainant has failed to show

that her depression substantially limits a major life activity. Here,

the medical evidence reveals that complainant suffered from depression

during the summer of 1995, and was out on sick leave as a result.

During that time, complainant testified that she suffered from insomnia

and stress. Her medical records indicate that during this time she cried

a lot, suffered from headaches, and had little energy or motivation.

According to the record, complainant has been back at work, and there

is no evidence indicating that her depression is long term or that it

has reoccurred for a substantial period of time. As such, we do not

find that her depression rose to the level of a disability.

After a review of the record, we also find complainant failed to present

sufficient evidence that, because of her depression, the agency regarded

her as a individual with a disability. In addition, complainant failed

to show she has a record of a disability because of her depression.

Failure to Accommodate

An agency is required to make reasonable accommodations to the known

physical and mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities

unless it can demonstrate that doing so would impose an undue hardship

upon its operations. 29 C.F.R. �1630.9(a). Reasonable accommodation

may include job restructuring, reassignment to a vacant position, or

modified work schedules. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(o). Factors to consider in

determining whether any of these accommodations would impose an undue

hardship include the size and budget of the program, the type of operation

and the nature and cost of the accommodation. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(p).

As early as May 1994, complainant requested to work in an environment

free from fragrances due to her MCS. Although many employees stopped

wearing fragrance in response to an August 1995 memorandum by the

ATM which requested employees refrain from wearing fragrant products,

the ATM continued to wear fragrances when in contact with complainant.

According to complainant, this activity, as well as the ATM's practice

of keeping a bottle of perfume on her desk as a symbol of her refusal,

contributed to a hostile work environment.

After a review of the record, we find complainant's request for

an entirely fragrant free environment was not a reasonable request

for accommodation, and would have imposed an undue hardship on the

agency's operation. Complainant, whose office is located at Cleveland

Hopkins International Airport, requested that she be provided with an

environment free from fragrances, including perfume. However, she

failed to explain how her employer could provide her with an office

environment free from all fumes, including jet fuel, exhaust, cleaning

supplies, other perfumed personal products, as well as all other fumes

associated with an office comprised of at least a dozen individuals.

Enforcing such an accommodation would be impractical, especially when

considering the employer's obligation to limit and rid a large number

of scent producing agents one finds in the workplace.

Our analysis does not end there, though. The Interpretive Guidance

on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1991) (Guidance),

29 C.F.R. Part 1630, addresses the process for providing a reasonable

accommodation. It notes that once an individual makes a request for

an accommodation, "the appropriate reasonable accommodation is best

determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both

the employer and the qualified individual with a disability." Guidance,

29 C.F.R. �1630.9. In other words, once an accommodation is properly

requested, the responsibility for fashioning a reasonable accommodation

is shared between the employer and employee. Id. The record reveals

that in addition to her request for a fragrance-free environment,

complainant requested an air purifier in November 1994 and October 1995.

Although complainant admits that the AATM provided his own personal air

purifier, complainant maintained that this did not perform as well as

could be expected, and that she is not provided the necessary supplies

for the air filter.

The facts of this case illustrate a complete breakdown of the interactive

process necessary in formulating a reasonable accommodation. Here,

the agency itself admits that complainant requested an accommodation to

her MCS as early as May 1994, yet it failed to engage in any discussions

whatsoever as to how to accommodate her disability. For example, the

ATM averred in her affidavit that �[she] was aware that [complainant]

was sensitive to [fragrances] and wanted accommodations made. It wasn't

a direct request for me to stop wearing perfume. It was a request for

how to accommodate her condition.� ROI at ex. 8.

If there were any question as to whether complainant required a

particular accommodation, the agency should have solicited additional

medical information from her much earlier than it actually did. See,

e.g., Randel v. Dept. of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03960061 (August

8, 1996) (agency on notice of disability required to solicit necessary

additional information from employee). Instead, the agency ignored

its obligation until complainant submitted a �formal� request for an

accommodation. At that time, agency officials maintained that they

did not have medical documentation, despite the fact that she submitted

documentation in June 1994, and despite testimony that they were �acutely

aware� of her health problem and desire for a fragrance free environment.

See ROI at ex. 9, p. 2. In that regard, we remind the agency that when

requesting an accommodation, an individual may use �plain English� and

need not mention the ADA or use the phrase �reasonable accommodation.�

See Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship,

EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at p. 8 (March 1, 1999).

In light of these facts, we find that the agency failed to properly

investigate whether an accommodation could be made. If it was determined

that the requested accommodation, a fragrance free environment was

impossible, it was incumbent on the agency to engage in an interactive

process to determine, what, if any accommodations could be provided

so that complainant could perform the essential functions of her job.

Specifically, the record is devoid of any evidence as to whether the

agency investigated whether complainant could have worked at home, been

given the appropriate air filter, or could have had an office where

contact with others could have been kept at a minimum.

Although we find that complainant's request for an entirely fragrance

free work environment would pose an undue hardship on the agency,

the agency's responsibility did not end there, as discussed above.

We further find the agency's argument that complainant failed to provide

medical documentation in late 1995 to be disingenuous given the weight of

evidence which reveals that the agency was well aware of complainant's

illness and need for an air filter. As such, we find that the agency

discriminated against complainant when it denied her a reasonable

accommodation of an appropriate air filter.

Hostile Work Environment Based on Reprisal

It is well-settled that harassment based on an individual's prior

EEO activity is actionable. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th

Cir. 2000); Richardson v. New York State Dep't. of Correctional Serv.,

180 F.3d 426, 446 (2nd Cir.1999) ("co-worker harassment, if sufficiently

severe, may constitute adverse employment action so as to satisfy the

second prong of the retaliation prima facie case"); Drake v. Minnesota

Mining & Mfg. Co., 134 F.3d 878, 886 (7th Cir.1998) ("retaliation can

take the form of a hostile work environment"); Gunnell v. Utah Valley

State College, 152 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir.1998) ("co-worker hostility

or retaliatory harassment, if sufficiently severe, may constitute 'adverse

employment action' for purposes of a retaliation claim"). In order to

establish a claim of harassment under those bases, the complainant must

show that: (1) she belongs to the statutorily protected classes and/or

engaged in prior EEO activity; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome conduct

related to her membership in that class and her prior EEO activity;

(3) the harassment complained of was based on her disability and/or

her prior EEO activity; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of

unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an

intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is

a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of

Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). The harasser's conduct should

be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in

the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift

Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).

Complainant alleged that she was subjected to a retaliatory hostile work

environment because she assisted a co-worker with her EEO complaint and

because she filed a grievance in June 1995. After a review of the record,

however, we find complainant failed to present sufficient evidence

that established agency officials were aware that complainant assisted

another employee with her EEO complaint. We also find complainant failed

to establish she was subjected to retaliatory harassment based on her

June 1995 grievance. In that regard, we note complainant's grievance

dealt with her reassignment to the AS position, and was not based on

discrimination.

Despite this, we do find that complainant established that she was

subjected to a hostile work environment based on protected activity.

A request for reasonable accommodation of a disability constitutes

protected activity under Section 503 of the Americans With Disabilities

Act. EEOC Guidance on Investigating, Analyzing Retaliation Claims,

EEOC Compliance Manual Notice No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998). After a

careful review of the record, we find that the ATM and AATM perpetuated

an antagonistic position towards complainant in light of her repeated

requests for reasonable accommodation. As discussed above, complainant's

multiple accommodation requests were not responded to appropriately.

Finally, we note that the ATM did not dispute complainant's contention

that contemporaneous with the November 1995 threat of reassignment

or termination, the ATM told complainant that she was �not loyal to

management.�

We also find, as did the agency, that certain incidents alleged by

complainant constituted harassment, and were severe or pervasive enough to

alter the conditions of her employment. Specifically, we find that the

agency's repeated failure to accommodate complainant's MCS, as well the

removal of her alternate work schedule following her extended absence,

coupled by the threat of permanent reassignment or termination were

sufficiently severe to alter the terms and conditions of complainant's

work conditions. As such, we find complainant established that she was

subjected to harassment based upon protected activity.

Removal of Alternate Work Schedule Based on Race, Sex or Reprisal

After a careful review of the entire record, and after applying

the three-tiered analytical framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); and Texas Dept. of Community Affairs

v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), we find that the agency properly found

that complainant was not discriminated against on the bases of race or

sex when her alternate work schedule was taken away. Complainant failed

to show that her AWS was removed based on a discriminatory motive based

on her race or sex.

However, we do find the record supports complainant's contention that her

alternative work schedule was removed due to her requests for reasonable

accommodation. Complainant, who had repeatedly requested that management

accommodate her disability, was removed from her AWS upon her return from

sick leave. Although the agency contends that all employees were removed

from the AWS, the overwhelming evidence in the record does not support

their position. Rather, the record reveals that the Assistant Manager for

Automation, as well as Area Supervisors and Administrative staff retained

their AWS. In fact, the AATM reported to the agency's investigator that,

�the only person we felt was necessary at that time to mandate schedule

changes was [complainant].� ROI at ex. 10. Although the agency argues

that complainant's AWS was removed to restore �continuity,� they failed to

produce a scintilla of evidence that supported their conclusion. Rather,

both the ATM and AATM averred that complainant was an exceptional employee

who scored 2.85 out of a possible 3 points on her performance appraisal.

The agency failed to show that complainant's department suffered from

any continuity problems. As such, we find complainant proved, by a

preponderance of the evidence that the agency removed her from the AWS

program based on her participation in protected activity.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we find that the agency discriminated against complainant

based on her disability (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) when the agency

failed to accommodate her disability. We further find that the agency

subjected complainant to a retaliatory hostile work environment. 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 action:

Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall provide complainant with an upgraded Air

Purification System equivalent to one of the following: an NSA Model

7000A or Pure Air Cloud-9 Model 300; or a system deemed appropriate by

engineering standards and/or as deemed necessary for proper clean air

standards by appropriate consultants.

The issue of compensatory damages is REMANDED to the agency.

Thereafter, 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). The agency shall submit copies of the final agency action

to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.

Within forty five (45) calendar days from the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall restore any leave used and/or wages and other

benefits lost due to the agency's failure to accommodate complainant's

MCS.

Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall restore complainant to the Alternative Work

Schedule Program.

The agency shall take appropriate preventative steps to ensure that

no employee is subjected to harassment and to ensure that appropriate

steps are taken immediately after management is notified of any such

harassment.

The agency shall post a notice in accordance with the paragraph below.

The agency shall immediately provide training to the Air Traffic Manager

and Assistant Air Traffic Manager concerning their duties and obligations

pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII.

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.

ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1199)

If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to

an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the

complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall

be paid by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of

fees to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this

decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for

attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.

POSTING ORDER (G1092)

The agency is ORDERED to post at its Cleveland, Ohio facility 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 cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the

Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration

of the posting period.

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(R0400)

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:

September 18, 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

Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission dated ___________ which found that a

violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �791 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. have occurred at

this facility.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any

employee or applicant for employment because of that 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 Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,

Cleveland Automated Flight Service Station, (hereinafter referred to

as �facility�) supports and will comply with such Federal law and will

not take action against individuals because they have exercised their

rights under law.

The facility has been found to have violated the Rehabilitation Act and

Title VII when it failed to accommodate an individual with a disability;

subjected the individual to a hostile work environment based on reprisal;

and removed the individual from participating in the Alternate Work

Schedule Program based on reprisal. The facility was ordered to provide

the individual with an accommodation for her disability, restore any

leave used, and restore her to the Alternate Work Schedule Program.

The facility was also ordered to provide the complainant with the

opportunity to establish her entitlement to compensatory damages, pay

her reasonable attorney's fees, provide training to the responsible

officials, and post this notice.

The facility 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: _________________

29 C.F.R. Part 16141According to testimony in the record, complainant

apparently placed the TS on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) due

to performance deficiencies. Later, the ATM removed the TS from the

PIP and did not support complainant's position with respect to her

supervision of the TS. Furthermore, complainant alleges that despite

repeated complaints to the ATM that the TS had physically threatened her,

her complaints went unaddressed by management.

2It appears that the poor interpersonal relationship between complainant

and the TS may have payed a role in the decision to implement the

revitalization plan, as the plan also provided for the temporary

reassignment of the TS and the rotation of other employees into her

position.

3In order to maintain currency, Area Supervisors were required to obtain

a medical clearance.

4The 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.