01986521
08-17-2000
Edward J. Mattison, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Edward J. Mattison v. United States Postal Service
01986521
08-17-00
.
Edward J. Mattison,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01986521
Agency No. 1-I-63200197
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Edward J. Mattison (complainant) timely filed an appeal on August 27,
1998, with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the Commission) from a final agency decision
(FAD), dated August 4, 1998,
concerning a complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation
of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S. C. �
791, et seq.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the
appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be
codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the agency correctly determined that complainant was not
discriminated against on the basis of
his physical disability (photoelectric epilepsy), when on November 13,
1996, he was notified that the strobe lights on the Bulk Mail Container
(BMC) forklifts, at his workplace, would not be replaced with incandescent
bulbs.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the alleged discrimination, complainant was employed by
the agency as a Full-Time Mail
Handler, PS-04. He filed a formal complaint of discrimination on May 14,
1997, alleging discrimination
on the basis of his physical disability (photoelectric epilepsy) when,
on November 13, 1996, he received
verbal notification from AM-1, Acting Manager, Inplant Support, that the
strobe lights on the BMC forklifts would not be replaced with incandescent
bulbs. The agency found that complainant was not discriminated against,
reasoning that complainant was unable to show that the reasons articulated
by the agency for not removing the strobe lights from the forklifts were
"not credible or were a pretext to mask prohibited discrimination." This
appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We note, at the outset, that, in its FAD, the agency analyzed
complainant's case as a disparate treatment case. Complainant's case is
more properly analyzed under a reasonable accommodation analysis because
he asked the agency to remove the strobe lights from the forklifts in
order to accommodate his photoelectric epilepsy.
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under a
failure to accommodate theory, the complainant must demonstrate that:
1) he is an �individual with a disability� as defined in 29
C.F.R. � 1630.2(g);<2> 2) he is a �qualified individual with
a disability� as defined in 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m); and (3) he was
denied an accommodation. See Prewitt v. United States Postal Service,
662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981).
An �individual with a disability� is defined as someone who: (1) has
a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more
of such person's major life activities; (2) has a record of such an
impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 29
C.F.R. � 1630.2(g)(1)-(3). �Major life activities� include functions
such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking,
seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. �
1630.2(i). A �qualified individual with a disability� is defined as
someone �who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and
other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual
holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can
perform the essential functions of such position.� 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m).
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under
a failure to accommodate theory, the complainant must demonstrate
that: 1) he is an �individual with a disability� as defined in
29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g); 2) he is a �qualified individual with
a disability� as defined in 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m); and (3) he was
denied an accommodation. See Prewitt v. United States Postal Service,
662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981).
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodations to the known
physical and mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities
unless it can demonstrate that doing so would impose an undue hardship
upon its operations. 29 C.F.R. �1630.9(a). Reasonable accommodation
may include job restructuring, reassignment to a vacant position, or
modified work schedules. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(o). Factors to consider in
determining whether any of these accommodations would impose an undue
hardship include the size and budget of the program, the type of operation
and the nature and cost of the accommodation. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(p).
In this case, the Commission finds that the record is not fully developed
on the question of whether the complainant is a �qualified individual with
a disability.� Even assuming that complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability, we find that the record demonstrates that the agency
provided reasonable accommodations for his disability. A review of the
record shows that in order to accommodate the fact that complainant's
doctor said that he could not work around flashing lights, complainant
was assigned to Sack Shake-Out, an area with no flashing lights, and
was prohibited from driving forklifts. Several months later, because
of safety concerns, new strobe lights were installed in Sack Shake-Out.
The agency then reassigned complainant to another building, where strobe
lights were not installed. We find that complainant's request for the
agency to replace the strobe lights with incandescent bulbs would have
created an undue hardship for it because strobe lights were required by
OSHA regulations. If the agency removed strobe lights from the forklifts,
they would have been in violation of these regulations. The agency's
reassignment of complainant to a work area that did not have flashing
lights was an effective accommodation for complainant's condition.
The agency, therefore, did not discriminate against complainant when it
did not remove the strobe lights from its forklifts.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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
_08-17-00_________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1 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 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.
2 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. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website: www.eeoc.gov.