01962632
11-13-1998
John D. Jackson, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Areas) Agency.
John D. Jackson v. United States Postal Service
01962632
November 13, 1998
John D. Jackson, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01962632
) Agency No. 1G-754-1015-95
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Southeast/Southwest Areas) )
Agency. )
_______________________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the final agency
decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint,
which alleged discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and � 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
The appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions
of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether appellant proved, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of
race (Black), national origin (African-American), and physical disability
(carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis), when on October 18, 1994, he was
denied work within his medical restrictions due to an on-the-job injury.
BACKGROUND
In a formal complaint filed on December 13, 1994, appellant alleged that
the agency discriminated against him as alleged above. Following the
agency's investigation, appellant was notified of his right to request a
hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or an immediate final
agency decision (FAD). Appellant received this notice on July 6, 1995,
and failed to respond. Thus, in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110
et seq. the agency issued a FAD on the merits of appellant's complaint.
In its FAD, the agency found that appellant failed to establish that he
was discriminated against as alleged, because he failed to establish a
prima facie case of discrimination in that the named comparison employees
were not found to be similarly situated.
ANALYSIS
Disability Discrimination
Appellant can establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination
by establishing that: (1) he is an individual with a disability as
defined by EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.203(a); (2) he is a qualified
individual with a disability as defined by 29 C.F.R. �1614.203(a)(6); and
(3) he was subjected to an adverse personnel action under circumstances
giving rise to an inference of disability discrimination. See Prewitt
v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981).
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.203(a) states that an individual
with a disability is one who has a physical or mental impairment
which substantially limits one or more of such individual's major life
activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having
such an impairment. Major life activities include caring for one's self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning, and working. A "qualified individual with a disability" is
a disabled individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions in question without endangering the
health and safety of the individual or others.
The medical evidence of record establishes that appellant was medically
restricted from generally lifting/carrying no more than 24 pounds,
specifically lifting with his right arm, intermittent sitting, kneeling,
bending, stooping, twisting, pushing, pulling or simple grasping
with his right arm, and required to wear a wrist splint at all times.
Notwithstanding, the record reflects that appellant was given limited
duties within his medical restrictions as an accommodation.
However, the medical record also demonstrates appellant sought extensive
medical treatment for Major Depression and a drug/alcohol problem. On
June 14, 1994, appellant admitted himself to the hospital for Major
Depression. Thereafter, while on administrative leave, appellant was
called and told he would be denied work on the clock within his medical
restrictions. The agency decision to eliminate appellant's limited
duties was based on information received from one of appellant's
psychiatrist's regarding threats appellant had made against his
Supervisor and the psychiatrist's belief that appellant was capable of
carrying out the threat. Further testimony revealed that the Supervisor
was also contacted by appellant's psychiatrist. The Supervisor testified
that the psychiatrist felt that he should take appellant's threats very
seriously and protect himself since she (the psychiatrist) knew appellant
kept a gun in his car.
We find that appellant has failed to establish that he is a qualified
individual with a disability as defined by the regulations. The record
establishes that he posed a threat to both himself and his supervisor.
As such, appellant failed to be covered under the Act.
Race and National Origin Discrimination
Appellant's allegation of reprisal discrimination constitutes a claim of
disparate treatment which is properly analyzed under the three-tier order
and allocation of proof as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973).
The McDonnell Douglas analytical paradigm need not be adhered to in all
cases. In appropriate circumstances, when the agency has established
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct, the trier of fact
may dispense with the prima facie inquiry and proceed to the ultimate
stage of the analysis, i.e., whether the complainant has proven by
preponderant evidence that the agency's explanations were a pretext for
discrimination. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990). Since the
agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
action, the Commission will consider whether the agency's explanations
for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
Considering the facts of this case, which need not be repeated here, and
a thorough review of the entire record, we find that the record is devoid
of any evidence which would suggest that appellant was denied work for
any reason other than his threats of violence towards his supervisor and
the agency's responsibility to provide a safe working environment for all
of its employees. After a careful review of the record, the Commission
finds that appellant failed to establish that the agency's reason for
its action was pretext for discrimination. We note there are no new
contentions on appeal. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the decision of the EEOC to AFFIRM the agency's final
decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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. Both the request and the civil action must be Filing a request for
an attorney does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right
to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
Nov 13, 1998
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations