01973951
08-31-2000
Sonja V. Hrobowski, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sonja V. Hrobowski, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01973951
v. ) Agency No. 1-J-601-1117-94
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (Commission) from the final decision of the
agency concerning her allegation that the agency violated Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.; and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.<0>
The appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg.
37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the agency discriminated against the
complainant based on race (Black) and physical disability (injury to hip
and lower back) when she was denied training as a Mail Flow Controller.
BACKGROUND
The complainant filed a formal complaint in July 1994 in which she
raised the issue identified above. Following an investigation, the
complainant did not request an administrative hearing and the agency
issued a final decision in April 1997 finding no discrimination. It is
from this decision that the complainant now appeals.
During the period in question, the complainant was employed as
a Mailhandler at the agency's facility in Carol Stream, Illinois.
The record reveals that, in early to mid-1994, the complainant submitted
several requests for Mail Flow Controller training. According to the
complainant, these requests were denied on approximately six occasions
between February and July 1994. The complainant alleges that, during this
same period, another employee (Employee A, White) received the training
in question. The complainant also contends that her �temporary physical
limited duty status was used as a criteri[on] for the denial.�
According to the Manager, Distribution Operations (the Responsible
Official, RO), there were several reasons why the complainant's requests
were denied, the most significant being her poor attendance record.
Additionally, the RO explained that the complainant is the union steward
for the Mailhandlers, and that, as such, it would constitute a conflict
of interest for her to supervise employees she represented. Finally,
the RO stated that the complainant was unable to �walk up and down
the cat walk which lies along the sack sorter,� and that, because the
complainant was using a cane, it would have been difficult for her to
go up the stairs leading to the control tower.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Race
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation
of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case
alleging discrimination is a three-step process. The complainant has
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.
If the complainant meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the
agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
challenged action. The complainant must then prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the legitimate reason articulated by the agency
was not its true reason, but was a pretext for discrimination. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Initially, we find the complainant has established a prima facie case of
race discrimination. In so finding, we note that the complainant was
denied Mail Flow Handler training while Employee A, a nonmember of her
racial group, received this training. See Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934,
951 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Now that the complainant has established a prima facie case, the agency
has the burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for the challenged action. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). The Commission finds, based on the testimony
of the RO, that the agency has met this burden. Specifically, the RO
articulated several reasons for denying the complainant the training,
including her poor attendance record and her position as the union
steward for the Mailhandlers.
At this point, the complainant bears the burden of establishing that the
agency's articulated reasons are a mere pretext for discrimination.
The complainant can do this either directly, by showing that a
discriminatory reason more likely motivated the agency, or indirectly,
by showing that the agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of
credence. Id. at 256.
The Commission finds the complainant has not established pretext.
In so finding, we note the complainant has not demonstrated that the
reasons articulated in support of the decision to deny her training
are unworthy of credence. Although the complainant argues that her
personnel file did not contain any attendance-related discipline, this
does not, by itself, establish that she did not have attendance problems.
Furthermore, the complainant has offered nothing which indicates that
the decision to deny her training was related to her race. Accordingly,
the Commission finds the complainant has not established that she was
discriminated against based on race.
Disability
The burdens of proof required in a disparate treatment claim brought
pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act are modeled after those used in
Title VII law. See Prewitt v. U.S. Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th
Cir. 1981). To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination,
the complainant must demonstrate that: 1) she is an �individual with a
disability� as defined in 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(g);<0> 2) she is a �qualified
individual with a disability� as defined in 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(m); and
(3) the agency took an adverse action against her. Id. The complainant
must also demonstrate a causal relationship between her disability and
the adverse action.
An �individual with a disability� is defined as someone who: (1)
has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or
more of such person's major life activities; (2) has a record of such
an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 29
C.F.R. �1630.2(g)(1)-(3). �Major life activities� include functions
such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing,
hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(i).
In this case, the complainant has presented no medical evidence in
support of her claim and, as such, has not demonstrated that she has an
impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Moreover,
we note that the complainant has repeatedly characterized her condition
as temporary. In this regard, it is well-settled that �[t]emporary,
non-chronic impairments that do not last for a long time and that
have little or no long-term impact usually are not disabilities.�
Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of
the Americans With Disabilities Act, Chapter II, Page 5. Therefore,
the Commission concludes the complainant cannot establish that she has
an actual disability.
The Commission also finds insufficient evidence to conclude that
the complainant had a record of a substantially limiting impairment.
Finally, in considering whether the complainant was regarded as having
such an impairment, we note that the RO stated in his affidavit that
he was �aware of her disability.� This statement, by itself, does
not mean that the RO regarded the complainant as having an impairment
that substantially limited a major life activity. See Sutton v. United
Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Murphy v. United Parcel Service,
Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999); Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S.555
(1999). This is particularly true given the complainant's repeated claim
that her condition was temporary, and, in this regard, the RO may have
merely meant that he was aware of her temporary condition. For these
reasons, the Commission finds insufficient evidence to conclude that the
complainant was regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment.
Accordingly, the Commission finds the complainant has not established
that she is an �individual with a disability,� and, for that reason,
cannot establish that she was discriminated against based on disability.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the record and for the reasons cited above, it is the
decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the FAD and find the complainant has
not established that the agency discriminated against her as alleged.
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:
__08-31-00_____ _____________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
01 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.
02 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.