01a60755_r
04-26-2006
Roy B. Moore, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roy B. Moore v. United States Postal Service
01A60755
April 26, 2006
.
Roy B. Moore,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A60755
Agency No. 4G-760-0102-05
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's decision
dated October 19, 2005, finding no discrimination. In his complaint,
complainant, a Letter Carrier at the agency's Bridge Creek Station,
alleged discrimination based on disability (degenerative joint disease)
and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) on March 2, 2005,
he was placed off the clock, without pay, pending clarification of his
physical limitations; (2) his sick leave request for April 4 & 11, 2005,
went unprocessed resulting in no pay for Pay Period 8; and (3) his sick
leave request for June 13 & 14, 2005, went unprocessed resulting in no
pay for Pay Period 13. The agency, in its decision, concluded that it
asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which
complainant failed to rebut.
Assuming arguendo that complainant had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, the Commission finds that the agency has
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged actions.
Specifically, complainant's Station Manager stated that when he arrived at
complainant's Bridge Creek Station in March 2005, he received information
on several issues, including the list of limited duty employees, from the
previous Acting Station Manager. He also stated that after reviewing
all employees on the list, he noticed complainant on the workroom
floor using a cane to do his City Carrier duties. He was immediately
concerned for complainant's safety along with the other employees due
to having to use a cane for all his carrier duties except walking part
of his city route. The Manager stated that he placed complainant off
the clock and subsequently sent him a letter dated March 3, 2005, in
which he requested updated information in order to address his current
condition. He indicated that the information complainant had previously
provided was insufficient as it did not address his use of a cane and he
needed to know if complainant could carry mail in his current condition.
The Manager noted that complainant never asked him for any accommodation
for his condition.
The previous Acting Station Manager stated that she was complainant's
manager from November 10, 2004 to February 26, 2005, prior to the above
Station Manager's arrival. She stated that in the end of November or the
first of December 2004, complainant had a heart procedure done which put
him in a very serious health condition. He did not provide any medical
documentation clarifying his heart condition or his use of a cane.
The Acting Manager stated that she only had documentation stating he
tried to claim an injury on the job for a genetic degenerative disease
that was denied and stating he had permanent limitations. During the
months of January and February 2005, the Acting Manager requested
clarification of complainant's limitations because each time he would
submit a work tolerance form, his permanent limitations would change.
During that time, complainant asked her to tell him what to put on the
form so he would be allowed to work, but she refused and instructed him
to have his doctor fill out the forms. Complainant had not provided
the requested documents prior to her leaving the facility, and he never
requested an accommodation.
With regard to sick leave requests, complainant claimed that they were
not timely processed resulting in a loss of pay for the pay periods
in question. The agency stated that the requests were inadvertently not
processed at the time of submission. However, these administrative errors
were promptly corrected by pay adjustments, and complainant received
all of the sick leave pay that he had requested. Complainant does not
dispute the agency's arguments.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that complainant failed
to show that the agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination.
The Commission also finds that complainant failed to show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that he was discriminated against.
Accordingly, the agency's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.<1>
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 26, 2006
__________________
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
______________________________
1The Commission does not address in this decision whether complainant
is a qualified individual with a disability.