Thomas E. Gillette, Complainant,v.Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 20, 2002
01A00887 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2002)

01A00887

06-20-2002

Thomas E. Gillette, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.


Thomas E. Gillette v. Department of Transportation

01A00887

June 20, 2002

.

Thomas E. Gillette,

Complainant,

v.

Norman Y. Mineta,

Secretary,

Department of Transportation,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A00887

Agency No. 2-98-2037

Hearing No. 100-99-7699X

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final

order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

791 et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),

as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ)

properly issued a decision in summary judgment finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

The record reveals that complainant, a Senior Audio Visual Producer at

the agency's Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters Building 10A

in Washington, D.C., filed a formal EEO complaint on December 23, 1997,

alleging that the agency had discriminated against him on the bases

of disability (severe allergic reaction) and age (D.O.B. September 11,

1940) when the agency failed to accommodate his disability.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of

the investigative report and requested a hearing before an AJ. The AJ

issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.

The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of disability-based discrimination. The record indicates that on

April 19, 1996, complainant experienced a severe allergic reaction at his

official duty station within Building 10A. He began experiencing these

severe allergic reactions not only within his official duty station

but whenever he entered into Building 10A. His symptoms included

loss of voice, dry and tight throat, severe skin redness and itching,

some tightness in his chest, lightheadedness, nausea, fatigue, and

sensitive skin. Complainant sought medical treatment from several medical

specialists and health care providers. Although he was under treatment,

he developed a greater sensitivity to Building 10A to the point he could

not enter the building without experiencing severe allergic reactions.

On May 28, 1998, complainant's physicians advised him not to go into

Building 10A.

The AJ found that complainant failed to demonstrate that his impairment

substantially limited him in a major life activity. In particular,

the AJ noted that complainant's condition solely limits his ability

to work in Building 10A. The AJ indicated that there was no evidence

that he could not work in a class of jobs or in a broad range of jobs

in various classes. The AJ concluded that complainant cannot work in

one job in one particular location. The AJ determined that this was

insufficient to establish that complainant is an individual with a

disability covered under the Rehabilitation Act.

The AJ also found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of age-based discrimination. Specifically, the AJ determined that

complainant presented no objective evidence supporting the allegation that

the agency's refusal to provide an accommodation was based upon his age.

Therefore, she concluded that complainant did not show that the agency's

action was discriminatory based on his age.

The agency's final order implemented the AJ's finding of no

discrimination.

On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ erred when she relied on a

line of Commission cases which involved complainants who could perform

the functions of their positions in other workplaces. He also reargues

issues raised to the AJ. Complainant attempts to distinguish his case

from the cases cited in the AJ's decision regarding coverage under the

Rehabilitation Act. In particular, he stated that he would have gladly

performed the functions of his positions at another site, however he

was prevented from doing so because of the agency's refusal to move the

equipment necessary to perform the duties of his position. In response,

the agency disputes complainant's claim that he is an individual with

a disability covered under the Rehabilitation Act. In particular, the

agency argues that his impairment is not substantially limiting because

it is affected only in a limited venue. The agency also requests that

the Commission affirm its adoption of the AJ's summary judgment decision

finding of no discrimination.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without

a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of

material fact. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment

procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate

where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and

evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine

issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court's

function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether

there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the

non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all

justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.

Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that

a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital

Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"

if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case

can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment

is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,

an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination

that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the grant

of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material

fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the

relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,

and laws. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to

complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence to

establish his prima facie cases of discrimination based on age and/or

disability.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's

contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence

not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.

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:

______________________________

Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

June 20, 2002

__________________

Date