Johnny R. Williams, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 12, 2000
01973755 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 12, 2000)

01973755

09-12-2000

Johnny R. Williams, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Region), Agency.


Johnny R. Williams v. United States Postal Service

01973755

September 12, 2000

Johnny R. Williams, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01973755

v. ) Agency No. 1G-756-1077-95

) Hearing No. 310-96-5545X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Southeast/Southwest Region), )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On April 4, 1997, complainant timely appealed the final agency decision,

dated March 14, 1997, concluding he had not been discriminated against

in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

791 et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant alleged that officials

at the agency's Dallas, Texas, Bulk Mail Center (BMC) discriminated

against him on the basis of his physical disability (medial meniscus and

degenerative arthritis in both knees) when, in August 1995, his request

for light duty was denied, and he was not allowed to return to work.

The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to

be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed at the

Dallas BMC as a Mailhandler, PS-04. He had worked for the postal

service for approximately two-and-one-half years. Complainant's

medical history revealed that he had had problems with his knees for

nearly twenty years--diagnosed as medial meniscus and degenerative

arthritis--which resulted in periodic significant pain and affected

his range of motion. In 1977, he had surgery (medial meniscectomy)

on his right knee but continued to experience problems with the knee.

The agency was aware of complainant's medical condition when he was hired.

On June 17, 1994, complainant alleged he injured his left knee at work.

Medical documentation indicates that he was diagnosed with a torn medial

meniscus. Complainant filed a workers' compensation claim and returned

to work in a limited duty position subject to a variety of medical

restrictions (no lifting over twenty five pounds, no pushing more than

fifty pounds, and other restrictions on climbing, bending and stooping).

In April 1995, complainant's claim for workers' compensation was denied

because he was unable to establish that his knee condition resulted from

an injury incurred at work.

When his workers' compensation claim was denied, complainant no longer

qualified for a �limited� duty assignment. Therefore, he applied for

a �light� duty assignment. His request was reviewed by the agency's

light duty committee, comprised of management and union representatives.

The committee approved a temporary light duty assignment for complainant,

consistent with his medical restrictions. Complainant was assigned

to work in the sticks and rewrap area, the sack shakeout area, and to

operate a forklift and work in the gatehouse as needed.<2> This light

duty assignment was initially approved through June 1995,<3> at which

time complainant was instructed to submit an updated doctor's statement

if he continued to need light duty.

In late August 1995, complainant submitted a request for a �permanent�

light duty assignment, accompanied by a medical form completed by his

physician which indicated that complainant had a number of permanent

medical restrictions, including: no lifting over fifty pounds or

repetitive lifting of more than twenty five pounds; no standing or walking

for more than one-half of an eight hour shift; no more than minimal

bending, squatting or kneeling; and no climbing of stairs or ladders.

On August 28, 1995, after reviewing this update to complainant's

medical restrictions, complainant's supervisors instructed complainant

to clock out. These officials explained that the additional climbing

restriction prohibited complainant from performing the bulk of his light

duty assignment because the sack shakeout area could not be reached

without climbing stairs. At his hearing on this matter in December 1996,

complainant testified that he had still not been permitted to return to

work.

On November 20, 1995, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint with

the agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him

as referenced above. The agency accepted the complaint and conducted

an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant

requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ).

On December 19, 1996, after a hearing at which six witnesses testified,

the AJ issued a decision concluding complainant had met his burden

of proving the agency failed to reasonably accommodate his physical

disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. In reaching this

conclusion, the AJ found that complainant had a physical impairment

which substantially limited one or more of his major life activities

as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. Based on this finding, the AJ

went on to conclude that when complainant was unable to perform his

regular duties because of well-documented medical restrictions, the

agency failed in its duty to provide him with reasonable accommodation

when management ignored his �consistent and frequent efforts� to secure

a reassignment to a permanent light duty position and instead placed

him in an indefinite off-duty status. Moreover, the AJ noted that

there was credible testimony that the Manager, Distribution Operations

(MDO), who handled complainant's light duty request, made statements

evidencing a discriminatory animus towards employees with disabilities

during a light duty committee meeting. Testimony indicated that these

statements included a comment that individuals with disabilities should

be �weeded out� prior to completing probation because after that they

were �hard to get rid of.� The MDO was also alleged to have said that a

physical injury ended an employee's chance for promotions and transfers.

Based on the combination of this evidence, the AJ concluded that the

agency violated its duty to reasonably accommodate complainant under

the Rehabilitation Act. On March 14, 1997, the agency issued its final

decision, rejecting the AJ's recommended decision, and entering a finding

of no discrimination. It is from this decision that complainant now

appeals.

After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission

finds that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts

and properly analyzes the appropriate regulations, policies and laws.

The Commission reviews post-hearing, factual findings by an AJ under a

substantial evidence standard. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be

codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)). Substantial evidence is defined as

�such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.� Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations

Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding

whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding.

See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).

As an initial matter, we note that the agency, in its final decision,

conceded that complainant is an individual with a disability as defined

by the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, this issue is not before the

Commission on appeal, and need not be further discussed or addressed.

The dispositive issue in this case is whether the agency met its

responsibility to provide complainant with reasonable accommodations

to his disability in response to complainant's requests for permanent

light duty. While the Rehabilitation Act does not require an employer

to create a light duty position as an accommodation, it does require an

employer, absent undue hardship, to accommodate a qualified individual

with a disability by restructuring a position through redistribution

of marginal functions which he cannot perform because of disability,

or by reassigning him to an equivalent existing vacancy for which

he is qualified. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.203(g); Ignacio v. United States

Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 03840005 (September 4, 1984), aff'd,

30 M.S.P.R. 471 (Spec. Pan. February 7, 1986). Despite the agency's

assertions to the contrary, the Commission agrees with the AJ's finding

that complainant's repeated requests for a permanent light duty assignment

were essentially ignored and, instead, the agency placed complainant in

an unpaid off-duty status. The agency has the responsibility to provide

�absolute and continuing� accommodation to complainant, �until and

unless doing so becomes an undue hardship.� Tavarozzi v. United States

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942481 (July 8, 1996). The Commission

concurs with the AJ that the agency failed in this duty as there is no

evidence that an effort was made to conduct an individualized assessment

of complainant's abilities and limitations in an effort to determine

whether there were jobs available which he could have performed.<4> The

agency had provided complainant with temporary light duty assignments,

and there was no evidence to suggest that placing complainant on permanent

light duty would have caused an undue hardship on the agency. Based on

the evidence of record, the Commission discerns no basis to disturb the

AJ's finding of discrimination. Accordingly, it is the Commission's

decision to REVERSE the agency's final decision which rejected the AJ's

finding of disability discrimination. Since complainant's request for

relief included compensatory damages, the Commission remands the issue

of his entitlement to the AJ. In order to remedy complainant for its

discriminatory actions, the agency shall, comply with the following

Order.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:

(A) Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, the agency shall retroactively reinstate complainant,

with backpay, to his former position at the Dallas BMC. Prior to

reporting for duty, complainant shall provide the agency with a current

assessment of his medical condition and any current medical restrictions.

Upon receipt of this information, the agency shall assign complainant

to a position, the essential functions of which he can perform with

or without reasonable accommodation. The agency shall take all steps

necessary to ensure that, once complainant returns to work, he is

provided with reasonable accommodation to his disability.

(B) Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency is directed to award complainant back pay, with

interest, for all wages and benefits lost between the date he was

barred from working (August 28, 1995) and the date he returns to duty

or declines the offer of reinstatement. The agency shall determine

the appropriate amount of back pay, interest and other benefits due

complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(c). The complainant shall

cooperate in the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and

benefits due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by

the agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back

pay and/or benefits, the agency shall issue a check to the complainant

for the undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date

the agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The complainant

may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute.

The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the

Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled

"Implementation of the Commission's Decision."

(C) The issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs

are REMANDED to the Hearings Unit of the Dallas District office.

Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on these

issues in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,657 (1999) (to be

codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109), and the agency shall issue a final

action in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,657-58 (1999) (to be

codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110) within forty (40) days of receipt of

the Administrative Judge's decision. The agency shall submit copies

of the Administrative Judge's decision and the final agency action to

the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.

(D) The agency shall post at the Dallas, Texas, BMC copies of the

attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the

agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the agency

within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in

conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees

are customarily posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps

to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by

any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to

the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled

"Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar

days of the expiration of the posting period.

(E) The agency shall provide training to all the management officials

responsible for this matter in their duties and obligations under the

Rehabilitation Act.

(F) The agency shall, within thirty calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final, reimburse complainant for all documented travel

expenses associated with the prosecution of his complaint.

(G) The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the

agency's calculation of back pay and other benefits due complainant,

including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the

complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a

civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior

to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a

civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph

below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407

and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the

underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �

2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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 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 (R1199)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

September 12, 2000 ____________________________________

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

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 Complainant testified that, in reality, he was only allowed to work

in the sack shakeout area.

3 It appears from the record that complainant's light duty assignment

was later extended through August 1995.

4 The Commission notes that such an assessment may have been conducted

by the light duty committee when complainant was first placed in an

temporary light duty position. However, it appears that the agency later

ignored complainant's request for a permanent light duty assignment and

the decision was made to send him home on an indefinite basis.