Terry L. Grant, Complainant,v.Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 7, 2009
0120064456 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 7, 2009)

0120064456

01-07-2009

Terry L. Grant, Complainant, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Terry L. Grant,

Complainant,

v.

Dr. Donald C. Winter,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200644561

Hearing No. 140-2006-00011X

Agency No. 056592301413

DECISION

On July 25, 2006, complainant filed an appeal concerning his

equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment

discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a Sheet Metal Worker, WG-3806-08 with the agency's Naval Air Depot

in Cherry Point, North Carolina.

On July 29, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he

was discriminated against on the basis of disability (Chronic Lower Back

and Knee Pain) when:

Management issued complainant a Job Placement Offer downgrading

him from the position of Sheet Metal Worker, WG-3806-08,

to the position of Sheet Metal Mechanic Helper, WG-3806-05,

on June 24, 2005.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a

hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested

a hearing and the case was assigned to an AJ. On June 6, 2006, the

AJ dismissed complainant's hearing request for failure to submit a

pre-hearing report as required in a February 24, 2006 Scheduling Notice

and Order. On June 8, 2006, the AJ remanded the complaint to the agency

for the issuance of a final decision on the merits of the complaint.

Complainant filed the present appeal on July 25, 2006. On appeal

complainant states that he has shown that he was reduced in rate and pay

because of his disability. Complainant further states that he remains

doing the same job as other WG-08 and WG-10 personnel in the shop with

the same responsibilities but is paid at a lower WG-05 rate.

Thereafter, on August 11, 2006, the agency issued a final decision

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that

complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as

alleged.

In response to complainant's appeal, the agency argues the appeal

should be dismissed as premature. Alternatively, the agency requests

the Commission affirm its finding that complainant was not discriminated

against as alleged.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Although complainant's appeal was filed prior to the issuance of the

agency's final decision, we note the agency subsequently issued a final

decision finding no discrimination. We find it appropriate to address

whether the agency properly found no discrimination.2

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo

review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management

Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that

the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine

the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the

previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements,

and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions

of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's

own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").

Upon review of the record, assuming complainant was substantially

limited in a major life activity, we find he has not established that the

agency discriminated against him with regard to the alleged actions.3

The record reveals that on October 27, 2004, complainant presented

a statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center

stating that he could not be on his feet more than two hours at a time.

The statement also stated complainant was under the care of a podiatrist.

On November 17, 2004, complainant's podiatrist provided complainant's

medical limitations from November 17, 2004, through May 17, 2005 as:

no climbing on scaffolding, ladders or aircraft; no climbing stairs; no

prolonged walking or standing over two hours; and alternate sitting and

standing as needed. On May 22, 2005, complainant provided a statement

from the VA Primary Care Clinic requesting permanent light duty for

complainant and noting that he cannot kneel, squat or stand more than

two hours per day and cannot climb on stairs or aircraft. The position

description for WG-08 Sheet Metal Worker states the physical requirements

of the position are based on the "arduous and hazardous nature of the

duties typically performed by sheet metal worker (aircraft)." The record

reveals that the position requires frequent walking or standing, climbing,

kneeling, bending, sitting, reaching above shoulder, moderate lifting and

carrying from 15-44 pounds, and may require work in cramped conditions.

The record contains the affidavits of the Airframes Division Director

and the Civilian Personnel/Manpower Division Director who both stated

that based on his permanent medical limitations, complainant could not

perform the essential functions of the WG-08, Sheet Metal Mechanic

Worker position. In his affidavit, the Airframes Division Director

stated that "most of the WG-08s in [his] Division are required [to]

perform work directly on the aircraft and that WG-08 level work requires

climbing on the aircraft and kneeling, standing or bending in awkward

positions for long periods of time." Upon review of the record, we

find that complainant could not perform the essential functions of the

WG-08, Sheet Metal Worker position. Further, we note that the agency

accommodated complainant by offering him the position of WG-05, Sheet

Metal Mechanic Helper, which complainant accepted.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no discrimination is

AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

January 7, 2009

__________________

Date

1 This appeal has been re-designated with the above-referenced appeal

number.

2 We note complainant did not challenge the AJ's dismissal of his

request for a hearing. We note the Commission has held that dismissing

a hearing request is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with

an AJ's Order.

3 We do not address in this decision whether complainant is an individual

with a disability.

??

??

??

??

2

0120064456

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

5

0120064456