James L. Hill, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 16, 2000
01985754 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2000)

01985754

03-16-2000

James L. Hill, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


James L. Hill v. United States Postal Service

01985754

March 16, 2000

James L. Hill, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985754

v. ) Agency No. 1D-234-1021-96

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On July 17, 1998, James L. Hill (hereinafter referred to as complainant)

initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(Commission) from a final decision of the agency concerning his complaint

of discrimination in violation of �501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.<1> The final agency decision

was received by complainant on June 20, 1998. Accordingly, the appeal

is timely filed, and is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).

The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that he was discriminated against on the basis of his

disability ("retired disability status"), and in reprisal for prior EEO

activity when the agency delayed processing his injury compensation claim

by acknowledging receipt of the claim on December 20, 1995, instead of

November 27, 1995.

Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in February 1996, raising the

above-referenced allegation of discrimination. The agency's initial

dismissal of the complaint was reversed on appeal. Hill v. USPS,

EEOC Appeal No. 01965340 (August 27, 1997). Thereafter, the agency

conducted an investigation of the matter at issue, and notified him

of his right to either an administrative hearing or a final agency

decision in the matter. Complainant failed to timely respond to the

notice, and the agency issued a final decision dated June 15, 1998,

finding that complainant had not been subjected to discrimination.

It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

The complainant stated that he submitted a CA-2 form for medical

disability, which was received by the agency on November 27, 1995.

The EEO Investigator indicated that a postal return receipt showed that

the form was received by a former Personnel Clerk on that date. It is

noted that the CA-2 form in the record was signed by the complainant and

his representative on November 30, 1993. Further, the record shows that

the complainant's application for disability retirement was accepted by

the Office of Personnel Management on February 7, 1994.

The Human Resources Specialist averred that she received the complainant's

CA-2 form on December 20, 1995, and forwarded the document to the Office

of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) on December 22, 1995. Thus,

she stated there was no delay in submitting the claim.

The complaint herein presents the issue of whether the agency subjected

the complainant to disparate treatment on the basis of his disability

and prior EEO activity. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973), provides an analytical framework for proving employment

discrimination in cases in which disparate treatment is alleged. First,

complainant must establish a prima facie case by presenting enough

evidence to raise an inference of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas,

supra, at 802. The agency may rebut complainant's prima facie case by

articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and

if the agency does so, complainant must show, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the agency's reasons are a pretext for discrimination. Id.

The Commission finds that the complainant failed to establish a prima

facie case of reprisal. In order to establish a prima facie case,

the complainant must show that he engaged in protected activity, of

which the agency was aware, and that he was subsequently subjected to an

adverse action within such period of time that retaliatory motivation can

be inferred. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,

425 F.Supp. 318 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). It is

undisputed that the complainant engaged in protected activity, and that

the Human Resources Specialist was aware thereof. Nevertheless, the

record does not show that the complainant was subjected to an adverse

employment action. As stated, the EEO Investigator noted that the CA-2

form was received by a former Personnel Clerk on November 27, 1995.

Nevertheless, it is unclear from the record what information was received

on that date, as the document in the record is dated November 30, 1993,

and the complainant had retired effective February 7, 1994.

With regard to the issue of disability discrimination, the complainant

must first show that he is a qualified individual with a disability.

See Prewitt v. USPS, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981). A disabled individual

is one who: 1. has an impairment which 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).<2> Major

life activities include caring for one's self, performing manual tasks,

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

In the case at hand, the record fails to show that the complainant was a

qualified individual with a disability. While the complainant applied

for disability retirement, there is no medical evidence regarding his

condition, or information showing that the condition affected his ability

to perform major life activities.<3>

Nevertheless, even assuming that the complainant had established that

he was a qualified individual with a disability, the record does not

support a finding of discrimination in this case.

Specifically, the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case,

as stated above, because he did not show that he was subjected to an

adverse employment action. Finally, even assuming that complainant

did establish a prima facie case, complainant has failed to prove, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency delayed processing his

claim for discriminatory reasons. Therefore, the Commission finds that

complainant was not subjected to disability or reprisal discrimination

with regard to the processing of his CA-2 form.

CONCLUSION

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

the decision of the Commission to affirm the agency's final decision of

no discrimination based on disability and prior EEO activity.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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 16, 2000

_________

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_________________________

_________________________

1On 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.

2The 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.

3In reaching the above determination, we have examined the complainant's

disability claim in light of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in

Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. , 119 S.Ct. 1752 (1999);

Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. , 119 S.Ct. 2133

(1999); Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. , 119 S.Ct. 2162

(1999); Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. , 119

S.Ct 1597 (1999); and Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 118 S.Ct. 2196

(1998).