01976263
02-03-2000
John J. Connolly, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (N.E./N.Y. Metro Region), Agency.
John J. Connolly v. United States Postal Service
01976263
February 3, 2000
John J. Connolly, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01976263
v. ) Agency No. 4B-010-1001-96
) Hearing No. 160-97-8055X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(N.E./N.Y. Metro Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of � 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> Complainant
alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his mental
disability (schizophrenia, paranoid type) when his request for a change
of schedule for the period September 5, 1995, through December 25, 1995,
was denied.<2> The Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with
EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons, we affirm the FAD.
The record reveals that complainant, a Custodian at the agency's facility
in Springfield, Massachusetts, filed a formal EEO complaint with the
agency on November 2, 1995, alleging that the agency had discriminated
against him as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Upon the agency's motion, the
AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) without a hearing, finding no
discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of disability discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found
that: (1) there was no evidence establishing that complainant's impairment
limited his ability to perform the essential functions of his job; (2)
there was no evidence to establish that complainant's supervisor had
actual or constructive knowledge of complainant's specific disability
or that such knowledge entered into the decision to deny complainant's
request; (3) complainant did not establish a nexus between his disability
and the agency's denial of his request to change his schedule; and
(4) complainant was unable to prove that he was treated less favorably
than non-disabled employees who requested a similar change of schedule.
The AJ noted that complainant's request to change his schedule was not
for the purpose of accommodating his disability, but rather to facilitate
his pursuit of a college degree. The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD.
On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ erred when he determined
that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability
discrimination. In support of this contention, complainant submits
Connolly v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01891352
(January 12, 1990), in which the Commission found that complainant was a
"qualified individual with a disability." The agency requests that we
affirm its final decision.
Upon review, we agree with the AJ's conclusion that complainant was
unable to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination.
Even assuming arguendo that complainant's supervisor regarded complainant
as a "qualified individual with a disability," we note that complainant
was not denied a reasonable accommodation relative to his disability.
See Simmons v. United States Postal Service, EEOC. Appeal No. 01955086
(December 18, 1997). Furthermore, we note that complainant presented
no evidence that the agency's action was motivated by discriminatory
animus towards his disability in so far as a non-disabled, maintenance
employee, under the same supervision as complainant, was also denied a
schedule change to attend school.
The Commission finds that the AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts
and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
In conclusion, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's findings of
no discrimination. Therefore, after a careful review of the record,
including complainant's contention on appeal, the agency's response,
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we affirm the FAD.
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:
February 3, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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
__________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
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 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.
2 The 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.