01A51628
05-18-2006
Don M. Niles Jr, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.
Don M. Niles Jr,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51628
Agency No. 4H335003103
DECISION
JURISDICTION
On December 20, 2004, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
November 16, 2004 final decision concerning his equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is
deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Letter Carrier in Tampa, Florida. On October 7, 2002, complainant
contacted an EEO Counselor and filed a formal EEO complaint on December 20,
2002. He alleged that the agency discriminated against him on the bases of
disability (major depression) and age (61 years old at the relevant time)
when he was denied a reasonable accommodation and was required to work
outside of his medical restrictions.[1]
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 initially
requested a hearing but then withdrew his request and asked the agency to
issue a final decision. In accordance with complainant's request, the
agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b) and
concluded that complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
FINAL AGENCY ACTION
In its final decision, the agency concluded that complainant failed to
demonstrate that he was disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation
Act. Specifically, complainant failed to prove that his medical condition
of depression and accompanying stress and anxiety substantially limited him
in a major life activity. Relying on the determination of the Office of
Worker's Compensation which found that his condition did not merit
compensation, the agency found that complainant failed to meet the criteria
for establishing that he was disabled. The agency also credited its
manager's contention that he was unaware of any medical restrictions
related to complainant's mental condition and that complainant had not
requested a reasonable accommodation.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant submitted no additional comments on appeal and the agency
requests that we affirm its final decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this case, Complainant has alleged that he was denied a reasonable
accommodation for a disability and that he was treated less favorably
because of his age. In cases such as this where there is no direct
evidence of discrimination, we apply a three part burden shifting analysis
set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green. 411 U.S.
792, 802-803 (1973).
Complainant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If complainant
meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the agency to articulate some
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged action. Texas Dep't
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 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 pretext
for discrimination. See id. at 256. When a complainant alleges that he or
she has been disparately treated by the employing agency as a result of
unlawful age discrimination, "liability depends on whether the protected
trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer's decision."
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000) (citing
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604,610 (1993)). "That is,
[complainant's] age must have actually played a role in the employer's
decision making process and had a determinative influence on the outcome."
Id. ; See also Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Health for
Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, 198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999); Swanks v.
WMATA, 179 F.3d 929, 933-34 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (setting forth the burden of
proof in a cases alleging discrimination based on a disability).
Our review of the record reveals that complainant failed to demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that his age motivated any of the agency's
actions at issue in this case.
Moving to complainant's claim of disability discrimination, complainant
alleges that the agency refused to accommodate his disability by requiring
that he continue to work as a letter carrier and postal clerk. He contends
that the jobs of letter carrier and postal clerk were demanding positions
with overwhelming levels of productivity which caused him to have anxiety
and panic attacks. Complainant claims the agency denied him a reasonable
accommodation when it did not give him a position within his doctor's
medical restrictions. For purposes of our analysis, we will assume without
specifically deciding, that complainant is a qualified individual with a
disability within the meaning of the law.
Here, on the day in question, complainant's statement described an incident
in which he requested leave due to the condition of his knee. He did not
specifically mention his depression or his mental condition as the basis
for his leave request. In further support of his claim for a reasonable
accommodation, the record contains a medical report from 1998 describing
complainant's mental condition. There are no more recent medical reports
supporting the assertion that complainant required an accommodation for the
time in question. Thus, we conclude that complainant did not make it known
to the agency that he sought a reasonable accommodation for his depression.
Additionally, complainant contends that he required a position that was
"stress free" because his letter carrier position had overwhelming
productivity requirements. However, complainant did not dispute that his
supervisor permitted him to take leave to address numerous family problems
which caused him anxiety and depression. The record reflects that on the
day in question, complainant was permitted to take leave. The Commission
finds that the agency's granting of leave was a reasonable response to his
anxiety, stress and depression. Moreover, complainant did not prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there was a vacant funded position,
"within his medical restrictions," for which he was qualified and to which
he could have been reassigned.
CONCLUSION
Therefore based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that
complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was
denied a reasonable accommodation and that he was discriminated against
based on his age. The agency's final decision is hereby affirmed.
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:
May 18, 2006
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director Date
Office of Federal Operations
-----------------------
[1] The Commission issued a decision reversing the agency's dismissal of
the complaint in part. Niles v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A32805 (December 12, 2003). In that decision, the Commission
affirmed the dismissal of the claim of hostile work environment, but we
reversed the dismissal of the claim of denial of reasonable accommodation
and required the agency to investigate this claim.