Mary Flynn-Banigan, Complainant,v.Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Immigration and Naturalization Service) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 3, 2000
01973401 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2000)

01973401

08-03-2000

Mary Flynn-Banigan, Complainant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Immigration and Naturalization Service) Agency.


Mary Flynn-Banigan v. Department of Justice

01973401

August 3, 2000

Mary Flynn-Banigan, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01973401

v. ) Agency No. 1835232

)

Janet Reno, )

Attorney General, )

Department of Justice, )

(Immigration and Naturalization Service) )

Agency. )

____________________________________________)

DECISION

Mary Flynn-Banigan (complainant) timely initiated an appeal from a final

agency decision (FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted

pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleged that she was discriminated

against on the basis of physical disability (vision impairment) when

a representative of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

told her that a requirement for the position of Border Patrol Agent

(BPA) was 20/70 uncorrected vision and that there was no sense going

through with the scheduled interview if she did not possess such vision,

which caused complainant to leave without being interviewed.

BACKGROUND

Complainant filed a formal complaint on November 10, 1983, claiming

disability discrimination as described above. The complicated procedural

history of this case is sent forth in great detail in Flynn-Banigan

v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01942876 (March 1, 1996) and

therefore will only be summarized as necessary in the current decision.

The present appeal was filed in response to the third FAD on the complaint

at issue. In its first FAD (FAD 1), remanded by the Commission on

August 22, 1988, the agency dismissed the complaint for failure to

state a claim.<2> On appeal, the Commission noted that FAD 1 improperly

considered the merits of complainant's complaint without benefit of an

investigation, and remanded the complaint for further processing.<3>

The agency conducted an investigation and issued a second FAD (FAD

2), finding that complainant failed to establish that she was disabled

within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. The agency also found that

assuming complainant was disabled, she was not �otherwise qualified� for

the position in question because she did not meet the 20/70 uncorrected

vision standard established by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

for law enforcement positions, such as the BPA position.

Complaint again filed an appeal and, on March 1, 1996, the Commission

issued a second decision, (EEOC Appeal No. 01942876), again remanding

the complaint for supplemental investigation, this time ordering the

agency to complete specific tasks and provide specific information.

The Commission noted that despite the previous order, the record still did

not contain sufficient evidence by which to determine if complainant met

the Rehabilitation Act's definition of an individual with a disability.

The Commission noted that there was not any evidence to indicate that

the agency even attempted to obtain this information, despite the fact

that the order was issued six years prior to FAD 2. The Commission

ordered that complainant be given a reasonable amount of time to provide

medical evidence concerning the nature and severity of her alleged vision

impairment and its effect on any of her major life activities.

The Commission went on to find that if complainant failed to present

this medical evidence or presented documentation indicating that she met

the vision standards when she was told not to complete the interview,

the agency was free to find that she failed to meet the threshold

requirements of the Rehabilitation Act and issue a FAD reaching this

conclusion. The Commission further noted, however, that if complainant

submitted medical documentation or other evidence that indicated that

her vision was such that she failed to meet the 20/70 vision standards

at the time of her scheduled interview, the agency was to proceed with

a supplemental investigation to provide certain specific information.

Among other tasks, the agency was to join OPM as a party to the remanded

proceedings so that there would be a full and fair opportunity to address

the question of whether the vision standards were being applied to a

class of positions or a wide range of positions in various classes, and

the underlying validity of the standards. During the investigation, the

Commission ordered that OPM should have direct input, particularly with

respect to the job relatedness of the 20/70 standard. The Commission

ordered the agencies to issue a joint final decision or, if necessary,

two separate decisions.

On February 25, 1997, the agency issued a third final decision.

Citing medical information submitted by complainant, the agency found

that her uncorrected vision when she was scheduled to interview for the

position was 20/300 in both eyes. The agency assumed that this was

a serious enough vision impairment to limit complainant's ability to

engage in major life activities<4> and therefore determined that she is

an individual with a disability. The medical evidence establishes that

complainant's corrected vision at the time of the scheduled interview

was 20/20 in both eyes.

The agency went on to conclude, once again, that complainant was

not �otherwise qualified� for the position because the job required

uncorrected vision of 20/70, based on the job description and OPM's

vision requirements established in 1973. The agency noted that this

requirement was grounded in safety and performance concerns and, as such,

reflected a valid job-related concern about a BPA's ability to safely and

effectively perform his or her job. It is from this FAD that complainant

now appeals.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, complainant contends that the agency failed to comply with

this Commission's order in EEOC Appeal No. 01942876. She notes that

OPM was not joined as a party and that no supplemental investigation

into the vision standard at issue was conducted. She also asserts that

the agency is attempting to dodge the issues set forth in her case and

has handled the case in a negligent manner, as illustrated by the 13

� years between the filing of her complaint and the most recent FAD.

The agency offers no response, other than to note that it has misplaced

certain documents related to the case.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The record does not include any evidence that the agency even attempted

to comply with the Commission's order in EEOC Appeal No. 01942876,

other than a letter requesting medical documentation from complainant.

Rarely have we seen so blatant a refusal to comply with an order issued

by this Commission.

While we admonish the agency for its undisguised decision to ignore our

previous order, we are bound by the law on disability discrimination as

it stands today. The Supreme Court has held that the determination

of whether a person is an "individual with a disability" must be based

on his or her condition at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The positive and negative effects of mitigating measures used by the

individual, such as medication or an assistive device, must be considered

when deciding if he or she has an impairment that substantially limits

a major life activity. Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471

(1999); Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999).

In the case at hand, the evidence establishes that complainant's corrected

vision was 20/20 in both eyes at the time of the scheduled interview.

She is therefore not substantially limited in the major life activity of

seeing, nor did she submit evidence indicating that she is substantially

limited in any other major life activity.

Complainant also failed to establish that she has a record of an

impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or that she

was regarded by the agency as being substantially limited in a major life

activity. The medical evidence submitted by complainant reveals that

her vision was always corrected to 20/20 and that she therefore has no

record of a vision impairment that substantially limits her. Moreover,

there is no evidence to suggest that the agency regarded complainant as

substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing. The evidence

only establishes that the agency representative told complainant that

she needed to have 20/70 uncorrected vision and 20/20 corrected vision

to qualify for the BPA position.

When the evidence does not establish that a complainant is substantially

limited in any other major life activity, the Commission will consider the

major life activity of working. See Interpretive Guidance on Title I of

the Americans with Disabilities Act, Appendix to part 1630, 29 C.F.R. �

1630.2(j).<5> To be substantially limited in one's ability to work, one

must be restricted from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range

of jobs in various classes. See 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(j)(3)(i). In the case

at hand, however, the legal analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court

in Sutton, forecloses the possibility that complainant is substantially

limited, has a record of a substantial limitation or was regarded as

substantially limited, in working.

In Sutton, the vision requirements of United Airlines disqualified the

plaintiffs from working as �global airline pilots.� The policy required

uncorrected vision of 20/100 and the plaintiffs' uncorrected vision was

20/200. Finding that an employer is free to decide that some limiting,

but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than

ideally suited for a job, the Court found that the allegation that an

employer has a vision requirement in place does not establish that the

employer regards an individual who does not meet the requirement as

substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The Court

determined that to be substantially limited in working, one must be

precluded from working in more than one type of job, a specialized job,

or a particular job of choice. The Supreme Court went on to find that

the position of �global airline pilot� was a single job and the fact that

the employer regarded petitioners' poor eyesight as precluding them from

holding that job, did not establish that the employer regarded them as

having an impairment that substantially limited them in the major life

activity of working. In so finding, the Court noted that there were a

number of other positions which utilized petitioners' skills, such as

regional pilot and pilot instructor.

Here, complainant failed to establish that the vision requirement

in question precluded her from working in more than one type of job.

Moreover, complainant's application establishes that she had a variety

of skills in 1983 and that there were may other types of positions which

utilized those skills. Indeed, complainant was working as a Geriatric

Aide before testing for the BPA position. Thus, we find that complainant

was not substantially limited in the major life activity of working

or regarded as such by the agency. We also find that she did not have

a record of being substantially limited in working.

Accordingly, complainant failed to establish that she is an individual

with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

The agency's finding of no discrimination is therefore AFFIRMED.

We note, in closing, that the agency's conduct in this case, including

disregard for Commission orders and unconscionable delays in investigating

and processing, has bordered on the contumacious. While we are bound by

the law on disability discrimination as it stands today and therefore

must affirm the agency's finding of no discrimination in this case,

we caution the agency that future behavior of the type engaged in here

will not be tolerated and remind the agency of this Commission's power

to issue sanctions against an agency that systematically abuses the

administrative process. See generally DaCosta v. Department of Education,

EEOC Appeal No. 01995992 (February 25, 2000).

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

August 3, 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.

2Flynn-Banigan v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01880998 (August

22, 1988), request to reopen denied EEOC Request No. 05881033 (May 17,

1989).

3 Both complainant and the agency filed requests for reconsideration,

which were denied.

4 No specific major life activity was mentioned in the medical documents

or by the agency.

5The 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 at www.eeoc.gov.