01981248
12-12-2000
Jeff Mobley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.
Jeff Mobley v. United States Postal Service
01981248; 01993643
December 12, 2000
.
Jeff Mobley,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 01981248; 01993643
Agency Nos. 4E-800-0163-97; 4E-800-0204-98
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated these appeals from two final agency decisions
(�FADs�) concerning his complaints of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., and Section 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against on the bases of race (White), age (41) , and disability
(Adjustment Disorder) when the agency: (1) scheduled him to work on
his off-day despite his prior notice that he had a medical appointment;
(2) deemed unacceptable his medical documentation supporting his absence
from work; and (3) failed to provide him with the appropriate amount of
overtime for the quarter. Complainant also alleged discrimination on the
basis of disability and in retaliation for prior EEO activity when the
agency (4) harassed him by sending him a �Letter of Instruction� seeking
further information regarding his medical condition. The appeals are
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Letter Carrier at the agency's Durango, Colorado facility. Believing
that the agency discrimination against him as described above, complainant
sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed formal complaints on March
31, 1997, and July 1, 1998. At the conclusion of the investigations,
complainant was informed of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by
the agency. Complainant requested that the agency issue final decisions.
In its FADs, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of race, age, disability or retaliation discrimination
because he was unable to demonstrate that he had been treated differently
than any other similarly situated comparative employees. Notwithstanding
its finding regarding the failure to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination, the agency concluded that management articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
First, the agency stated that complainant was scheduled to work his
off-day in effort to provide him overtime opportunities as required by
a grievance settlement. While acknowledging that complainant left a
note stating that he had a dental appointment on the day in question,
management stated that he did not indicate he was unable to work due
to the appointment. Regarding the request for acceptable medical
documentation, the agency stated that for the quarter, complainant
had missed more than 21 days of work and upon his return, current
medical documentation was required. Management stated that the initial
documentation provided by complainant was unacceptable because it lacked a
diagnosis and prognosis. As to the overtime issue, the agency provided
that complainant did not receive the appropriate amount of overtime
for the quarter due to his many days of absences from the workplace.
With respect to the �Letter of Instruction,� the agency stated that in
the case of extended absences, its rules require an employee to provide
periodic medical documentation updating the agency.
Finally, the agency concluded that complainant was unable to show
that the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination or retaliation. As a result, the FADs concluded that no
discrimination had occurred in either complaint.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency failed to properly review
his file which reveals that he had been treated disparately by management.
In response, the agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411, U.S. 792 (1973); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662
F.2d 292, 310 (5th Cir. 1981); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979) (explaining the legal standard for age discrimination cases);
and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)
(applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the Commission agrees
with the agency that even assuming complainant established a prima
facie case of race, age, disability or retaliation discrimination,
the agency has provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions which have not been shown to be pretextual. In reaching this
conclusion, we first note that the record indicates that the source
of the initial conflict between the parties comes from a grievance
settlement which requires the agency to provide complainant with certain
amounts of overtime. However, the record does not provide any support
for complainant's contentions that a prohibited basis was considered
in any of management's overtime decisions. As for the issues involving
the agency requests for medical documentation, we note that the record
shows that complainant missed extended periods of time from work due to
a medical condition for which the agency sought medical documentation
to explain the diagnosis and prognosis of the condition. The record
further demonstrates that management was following the agency's rules,
and not acting arbitrarily in its attempts to secure precise and current
documentation from complainant's physician. Moreover, after reviewing
the agency's medical documentation requirements, we do not find the
requirements to be discriminatory or burdensome.
In addition, based on the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Commission finds that
complainant failed to establish that the �Letter of Instruction� and
other attempts by management to secure medical information constituted
harassment based on his disability. We find that the record does not
demonstrate that the conduct in question was either severe or pervasive,
or resulted because of a discriminatory animus. As stated above, we find
that the management's attempts to obtain current medical documentation
was required by agency policy.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FADs.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
December 12, 2000
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.