Nathan B. Green, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 8, 2000
01972452a (E.E.O.C. Jul. 8, 2000)

01972452a

07-08-2000

Nathan B. Green, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.


01972452

Nathan B. Green v. United States Postal Service

July 8, 2000

.

Nathan B. Green,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Pacific/Western Region),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01972452

Agency No. 5-N-1415-92

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of color (Brown), national origin (Mexican), race (Black/Mexican)

and physical disability (degenerative discs), 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,<1> as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<2>

Complainant alleges he was discriminated against when: (1) he was issued a

Notice of Removal for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) on June 11, 1992;

and (2) he was denied reasonable accommodation on a continuous basis with

the last date being May 1, 1992. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

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

The record reveals that complainant was employed as a PS-4 Mailhandler

at the agency's San Jose, California General Mail Facility, when the

alleged acts of discrimination occurred. In 1989, complainant injured

his back at work, and this prevented him from performing the duties

of his position. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)

accepted complainant's claim that he had incurred an on-the-job injury

(low back strain), and complainant returned to work at the agency in a

limited duty capacity. In January of 1990, complainant was reinjured,

and worked intermittently at the San Jose facility. Complainant averred

that the light duty work assigned to him by the agency in 1990 and

continuously thereafter exceeded the restrictions established by his

treating physician. Pursuant to complainant's EEO complaint filed on

December 21, 1992, the agency conducted an investigation and issued its

initial FAD finding no discrimination. Specifically, the FAD found that

complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based

on race, color, and physical disability in that he failed to show that he

was treated differently than any similarly situated employees. The agency

further found that it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

for its actions, namely, that complainant had been offered limited duty

positions within his medical limitations, but he refused to perform them

and the agency was forced to remove him.

Complainant appealed this decision, and the Commission found that the

record was inadequate to support the agency's FAD, as the agency's

investigation on complainant's allegations of disability discrimination

was deficient and there was insufficient evidence from which to conclude

whether the positions offered by the agency were within his restrictions.

As a result, the Commission vacated the FAD and remanded the case to the

agency for a supplemental investigation regarding the issue of whether

complainant is a qualified individual with a disability and if so,

whether the agency provided reasonable accommodation. The Commission also

directed the agency on remand to investigate complainant's allegation

that he was discriminated against due to his national origin (Mexican).

See Green v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01942485

(May 8, 1996).

On remand, the agency conducted a supplemental investigation pursuant to

the Commission's decision. The agency then issued a FAD which found that

complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination based

on race, color, national origin or physical disability, as he failed to

demonstrate that he was treated differently than other similarly situated

employees. The FAD further found that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that regarding the

issue of reasonable accommodation, complainant was repeatedly offered

limited duty jobs within his medical limitations as certified by the

OWCP, but complainant refused to accept these jobs. The FAD found

that there was no evidence to support complainant's allegation that the

agency provided false and misleading information to examining physicians

regarding the history or physical requirements of the limited duty jobs

offered. The FAD noted that complainant had not submitted any additional

information that was not considered at the time the job offers were made,

and that the agency took appropriate action when complainant failed

to report for the limited duty positions he was offered. The FAD then

concluded that as complainant

failed to show that the agency's explanations were a pretext for

discrimination, he did not demonstrate that he was the victim of

intentional discrimination.

On appeal, complainant contends that the agency did not attempt to

reasonably accommodate him, as the positions he was offered exacerbated

his back injury. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that

complainant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination

on the bases of race (Black/Mexican), color (Brown) and national origin

(Mexican), as there is no evidence that similarly situated employees not

in complainant's protected classes were treated differently regarding

reasonable accommodation. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). We note that complainant provided no supplemental evidence on

remand to support his allegation that he was treated differently due

to his Mexican heritage or that the agency systematically discriminated

against Mexican-Americans.

Further, we note that the Commission directed the agency to specifically

analyze the issue of whether the agency failed to reasonably accommodate

complainant in addition to analyzing whether he was subjected to disparate

treatment due to his disability. However, on remand the agency again

concluded that complainant was not subjected to disparate treatment

on any basis, and did not address complainant's contention that the

agency discriminated against him by failing to reasonably accommodate

his disability pursuant to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act.

In addressing the merits of complainant's complaint, the Commission

notes that in order to establish a violation of the Rehabilitation

Act, complainant must show that he is an individual with a disability

within the meaning of the Act, i.e. that: 1) he is an individual with a

disability as defined in 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g); and 2) he is a "qualified"

individual with a disability as defined in 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m).

The agency's FAD did not address whether complainant is an individual

with a disability within the meaning of the Regulations, and we remind

the agency that such a determination is a required element of a prima

facie case of disability discrimination.

Nevertheless, the Commission finds that based on the record before us,

even assuming, arguendo, that complainant established that he is a

qualified individual with a disability as that term is defined by the

Rehabilitation Act, he failed to demonstrate that the agency discriminated

against him by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability. After a

review of the agency's supplemental investigation, we find that the

evidence developed pursuant to the Commission's ORDER in its

previous decision is sufficient to demonstrate that the limited and light

duty positions offered to complainant by the agency between March 5,

1990 and May of 1992 were within his physical limitations. The record

reveals that each time the agency offered complainant a limited duty

position (i.e., Modified Mailhandler), several physicians concurred that

the position was within

complainant's physical restrictions. The Modified Mailhandler position

primarily required performing tasks such as answering telephones, computer

processing and watching mail being weighed. Accordingly, the Commission

stated in its prior decision that complainant must document the particular

manner in which the agency violated his medical restrictions. We note

that complainant merely asserted the Modified Mailhandler positions

were inadequate, but has provided no documentation demonstrating that

the limited/light duty positions he was offered would have exacerbated

his existing back injury or that he was physically unable to perform

duties of the modified positions. We further note the determinations by

OWCP that the weight of the evidence established that the limited duty

positions offered by the agency were within his physical limitations.

We therefore find no evidence to contravene the FAD's ultimate conclusion

that the agency reasonably accommodated complainant by offering him a

position within his restrictions, which complainant refused to accept.

We therefore conclude that the agency did not discriminate against

complainant when he was issued the Notice of Removal on June 11, 1992.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record and arguments and

evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, and for the reasons

articulated above, the FAD is AFFIRMED.

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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

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 (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

July 8, 2000

__________________

Date

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

______________________________

1 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.

2 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.