01980566
02-15-2001
Douglas S. Schaff, Complainant, v. William A. Halter, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Douglas S. Schaff v. Social Security Administration
01980566
February 15, 2001
.
Douglas S. Schaff,
Complainant,
v.
William A. Halter,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01980566
Agency No. 95-0583-SSA
Hearing No. 120-96-5422X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final
decision 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.<2> Complainant alleges he was discriminated against on
the bases of disability (visual impairments) and in reprisal for prior
protected activity arising under the Rehabilitation Act when he received
a $500.00 rather than a $800.00 award and when other employees received
a lesser award for work allegedly performed by complainant.
The record reveals that complainant, a Computer Specialist at an
agency facility in Baltimore, Maryland, filed a formal EEO complaint on
September 13, 1995, alleging that the agency had discriminated against
him as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Following a hearing,
the Administrative Judge issued a decision finding no discrimination.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings
by an Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.� Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board,
340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding
whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding.
See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that
the Administrative Judge's decision properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
We note that complainant failed to present credible evidence that any
of the agency's actions were in retaliation for complainant's prior EEO
activity or were motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's
disability.<3> We discern no basis to disturb the Administrative
Judge's decision. 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 agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 15, 2001
__________________
Date
1 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.
2 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
3 Since the agency did not dispute complainant's status as a qualified
individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act,
the Commission declines to address this issue on appeal.