01994328
03-12-2002
Jo Ann Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Jo Ann Williams v. United States Postal Service
01994328
March 12, 2002
.
Jo Ann Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01994328
Agency No. 4G-752-0138-97
Hearing No. 310-98-5332X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a Final Agency Decision
(FAD) concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint 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.,
and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Complainant alleges she was discriminated against on the bases of race
(African-American), disability (head trauma, chronic cervical thoracic and
back pain), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when on or about January
11, 1997 complainant was notified that she would no longer be able to
report to the Carl Range Station on limited duty.<1>
The record reveals that complainant, a distribution clerk at the agency's
Irving, Texas facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on
February 22, 1997 alleging that the agency had discriminated against her
as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
was provided a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following the hearing, the
AJ concluded that complainant failed to prove discrimination on any
basis alleged.
The AJ reached the following conclusions. During the relevant time
period, complainant was working in a modified assignment reporting to
the Carl Range Station in Irving, Texas one day a week (Tuesday) for
five hours. In addition, complainant spent 15 hours per week working
in the union office.
According to complainant's treating physician, her limitations during
the relevant period were limited lifting up to 10 pounds continuously
and 24 pounds occasionally. Complainant was limited to no bending,
no stooping, no twisting, and no work in cold weather. In addition,
complainant was not permitted to sit for long periods in heavy traffic,
since it caused her pain and anxiety. Complainant's treating physician
also indicated that complainant could resume full-time work within her
medical restrictions.
In a letter dated February 13, 1997, complainant was offered a full-time
modified job which complainant accepted. Complainant reported to work
for about three to four months, but thereafter stopped reporting to work.
The modified job conflicted with complainant's union duties on Monday,
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Complainant was issued Absent without
Leave (AWOL) notices and eventually told that her limited duty position
was no longer available to her.
The AJ concluded that complainant established that she was a qualified
individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation
Act.<2> During the hearing, complainant argued that she stopped working
because the agency did not accommodate her in its February 1997 job
offer because the work hours prevented her from continuing her union
duties (as she was permitted to do pursuant to a 1993 EEO settlement).
The AJ noted that complainant also testified that the new modified
job accommodated all of her known physical and driving limitations.
Accordingly, the AJ determined that complainant's sole objection to the
February 1997 modified job offer was that the hours prevented union work.
The AJ concluded that this alone does not support a failure to accommodate
her disabilities and, accordingly, determined that the preponderance
of the evidence established that the agency satisfied its obligation to
reasonably accommodate complainant.
Since the agency met is obligations under the Rehabilitation Act to
reasonably accommodate complainant, the AJ concluded that the agency's
withdrawal of its limited duty position was not based upon impermissible
factors. The evidence shows that complainant failed to report to duty
over an extended period of time. Moreover, the AJ determined that
assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima facie case of
reprisal, disability or race discrimination, the agency articulated
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action.
Specifically, the AJ determined that the agency provided complainant
a written modified job offer on February 13, 1997 which complainant
accepted. By complainant's own admission, the job offer accommodated all
of her known disabilities. Moreover, the AJ determined that the duty
hours did not require driving during rush hour since she was scheduled
to work from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. With respect to the reprisal claim, the
AJ noted that the responsible management official testified that she did
not have knowledge of complainant's prior EEO activity. Accordingly,
the AJ concluded that complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that discrimination or reprisal occurred.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the final agency decision
because the Administrative Judge's ultimate finding, that unlawful
employment discrimination or reprisal was not proven by a preponderance
of the evidence, is supported by the record.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
March 12, 2002
__________________
Date
1 At the hearing in this matter complainant withdrew a claim made in
her formal complaint that she was issued an Absence Without Leave (AWOL)
letter on the bases of her race, disability and prior EEO activity.
2 We note that the agency does not dispute complainant's disability
status.