John A. Phipps II, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Region),) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 15, 1999
01971701 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 15, 1999)

01971701

01-15-1999

John A. Phipps II, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Region),) Agency.


John A. Phipps II v. United States Postal Service

01971701

January 15, 1999

John A. Phipps II, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01971701

v. ) Agency No. 1C-451-1012-96

) Hearing No. 220-96-5195X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Region),)

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of race (Black), and

physical disability (left eye and back), in violation of Title VII of

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

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1>

Appellant alleges he was discriminated against when on August 19, 1995,

he was hit by a forklift operated by a co-worker (CW), resulting in a back

injury. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed

as a PS-04 Mail Handler at the agency's Bulk Mail Center, Cincinnati,

Ohio. On August 19, 1995, CW backed his forklift into a pallet, which in

turn struck a pallet that struck appellant in the leg. Appellant went

to the hospital and was diagnosed and treated for "lumbar and multiple

contusions." After the supervisor on duty examined statements from

appellant, CW, and three witnesses, agency management officials concluded

that the accident was not intentional, and CW was informed verbally by

his supervisor (S1) that his forklift privileges were revoked until he

received eight hours of forklift retraining.

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO

counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on October

18, 1995. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant received

a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an

EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e),

the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) without a hearing, finding

no discrimination.

The AJ first concluded that appellant failed to establish that the

incident, or the investigation thereof, was intentional and motivated by

racial animus. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ noted that the agency

responded to and investigated the incident, contacted postal inspectors,

revoked CW's forklift operation privileges until he was retrained, and

disciplined CW for committing an unsafe act. The AJ then concluded

that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability

discrimination because he presented no evidence that either his eye or

back condition constituted a disability which substantially limited a

major life activity. The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD. On appeal,

appellant contends, among other things, that the AJ erred because the

record was devoid of evidence that the postal inspector investigated the

incident, and further, that there was no record that CW was disciplined as

a result of the incident. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

After a careful review of the record, and applying the standards set forth

in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Prewitt v. United

States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981), the Commission

finds that the AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced

the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We agree with the AJ

that appellant presented no evidence that he was an individual with a

disability as defined by the Rehabilitation Act, and thus, failed to

establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. See Cabrera

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01933109 (May 23, 1994)

(where no evidence of blindness in left eye was provided by complainant,

no prima facie case of disability discrimination was established).

We also note that while the record contains no evidence that CW was

disciplined, and further, that the agency representative informed the AJ

that the postal inspectors had no record that the incident was reported

to them by S1, we find no evidence that the incident, or the agency's

response, was motivated by discriminatory animus. By all accounts, CW

carelessly operated a forklift, resulting in the accident which caused

appellant's injuries and for which CW was required to attend forklift

operation retraining. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's findings of

no discrimination which were based on a detailed assessment of the record.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including appellant's

contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically

addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is

considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney

concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your

action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

Jan 15, 1999

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 The Commission notes that while appellant alleged, and the agency

accepted, the above-referenced allegation on the additional bases of

retaliation, appellant did not state retaliation was a basis in his

affidavit to the investigator, and the Administrative Judge (AJ) did not

address retaliation in her Recommended Decision. Moreover, appellant

did not allege on appeal that the AJ failed to consider retaliation as a

basis. We therefore treat the basis of retaliation as abandoned by

appellant.