04A20028
03-17-2003
Patrick M. Galos, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Patrick M. Galos v. United States Postal Service
04A20028
03-17-03
.
Patrick M. Galos,
Petitioner,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Petition No. 04A20028
Appeal No. 01973267
Agency No. 4F-950-1059-96
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On June 12, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) docketed a petition for enforcement to examine the
enforcement of an order set forth in Patrick M. Galos v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973267 (August 5, 1999).
This petition for enforcement is accepted by the Commission pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503. Petitioner alleged that the agency failed
to fully comply with the Commission's order to provide him back-pay.
For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Enforcement is DENIED.
In Galos v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973267
(August 5, 1999), petitioner filed a complaint in which he alleged that
the agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability (hip,
back and leg), age (DOB 4/8/50), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity.
Petitioner appealed the agency's final decision of no discrimination
to the Commission. In EEOC Appeal No. 01973267, the Commission found
that the agency failed to make any attempt to reasonably accommodate
complainant. We found that the agency failed to meet its obligations
under the Rehabilitation Act and that the failure to consider reducing
complainant's commuting time constituted disability discrimination.
The Order in that case specified that within sixty (60) calendar days
fo the date the decision became final, the agency had to: restore to
complainant any wages lost (with interest), leave used, and/or other
benefits lost due to the agency's discriminatory actions from October 19,
1995 until complainant returned to full duty. The matter was assigned
to a Compliance Officer and docketed as Compliance No. 06991763 on June
7, 2002.
Pursuant to the Order, the record reveals that complainant was paid
back-pay from September 14, 1995 to July 25, 2000. The record indicated
that July 25, 2000 was used as complainant's end of payment date based
on a physician's report. The doctor stated, �I do not believe that this
gentleman is employable.� The agency maintained that this medical report
was the second medical report indicating the same. The agency indicated
that the examination was in conjunction with a job offer. The agency also
indicated that petitioner signed PS Form 8039, which included July 25,
2000, as the end date and acknowledged that he was in agreement with
the information on the form.
On April 24, 2002, petitioner submitted the petition for enforcement
at issue. Petitioner contends that the agency failed to continue his
payment of back-pay past July 25, 2000. Petitioner contends that, because
of the pain and suffering that he suffered as a result of the agency's
discriminatory acts, he should be compensated until he is 65 years old.
Petitioner also maintains that his attorney's fees should be paid
beyond the July 2000 date set by the agency. Additionally, petitioner
maintains that he should be awarded past and future non-pecuniary damages.
He contends that if recent case law is applied he would receive payment
in excess of two million dollars.
We find that the agency has provided adequate documentation proving
that July 25, 2000 was not an arbitrary date and that complainant is
not entitled to back-pay beyond the July 25, 2000 date. Further, we
find that complainant is not entitled to past and future non-pecuniary
damages. We note, that in Galos v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04409
(September 12, 2002), the Commission addressed petitioners eligibility
for compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. In that case,
we found that petitioner had proven compensatory damages and costs in the
amount of $1,145. We find that other than the petitioner's assertions,
he has not provided evidence to show that the July 25, 2000 date was
arbitrary or that he is entitled to additional compensatory damages.
Therefore, after a review of the instant Petition for Enforcement,
the agency's response thereto, the prior Commission decisions, and the
entire record, it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the Petition.
There is no right of administrative appeal from this denial.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
_____03-17-03_____________
Date