Steven D. Halling, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Jr., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 17, 1999
01982479 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 17, 1999)

01982479

12-17-1999

Steven D. Halling, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Jr., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Steven D. Halling, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01982479

) Agency No. 4-J-606-1015-94

William J. Henderson, Jr., ) Hearing No. 210-97-6719X

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

________________________ )

DECISION

Complainant filed the instant appeal from the agency's final decision

dated December 29, 1997, finding that complainant was not discriminated

against on the basis of disability when on September 27, 1993 complainant

learned that he would not be hired as a part-time flexible city letter

carrier.<1>

On December 3, 1997 an EEOC Administrative Judge issued a decision,

after conducting a hearing, recommending a finding of no discrimination.

The administrative judge found that complainant did not meet any of the

definitions of an individual with a disability and was therefore not

protected by the Rehabilitation Act. The administrative judge found:

The record lacks evidence to establish that Complainant's impairment

substantially limited a major life activity. Complainant presented no

testimony or evidence that the arthritis in his neck affected a major

life activity. . . . Complainant contended . . . that his impairment

did not substantially restrict his ability to work. . . .

Secondly, I find that the Agency did not perceive Complainant as

possessing a disability which substantially limited a major life activity.

. . . [T]he evidence does not show, as it must, that the Agency believed

Complainant could not perform a wide range of jobs of similar character

because of his perceived disability and not simply a particular position.

. . . The evidence established that the Agency determined only that

Complainant was not medically capable of performing the position of

mail carrier.

Thirdly, I find that there is no persuasive evidence establishing that

Complainant had a record of a disability.

The agency concurred with the administrative judge's finding of no

unlawful employment discrimination.

An agency shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with

a physical disability. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.203(b). An individual with a

disability is defined as one who:

Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or

more of such person's major life activities;

Has a record of such an impairment; or

Is regarded as having such an impairment.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.203(a)(1).

The Commission agrees with the administrative judge that complainant was

not an individual with a disability as defined in the Rehabilitation Act.

The Commission agrees with the administrative judge that complainant

failed to show that: (i) his physical impairment substantially limited

one or more of his major life activities; (ii) he had a record of such

an impairment; or (iii) he was regarded by the agency as having such

an impairment.

After reviewing the entire record, including the hearing transcript and

investigative file, the Commission adopts the administrative judge's

finding that complainant failed to show that he was not hired for the

part time flexible city letter carrier position because of disability

discrimination. Therefore, the Commission finds that the agency properly

found that complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of

disability.

The agency's final agency decision finding no discrimination on the

basis of disability is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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 (Z1092)

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:

Dec. 17, 1999

DATE

Carlton

M.

Hadden,

Acting

Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_____________________ _________________________

Date 1On 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.