01a41832
07-12-2005
Julie Schrager, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Julie Schrager v. United States Postal Service
01A41832
July 12, 2005
.
Julie Schrager,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A41832
Agency No. 1I-531-0169-01
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's January 9, 2004
decision finding no discrimination. Complainant alleges discrimination
on the basis of disability (hearing impaired) when on June 21, 2001,
management did not provide a certified sign language interpreter for her
during a Town Hall Meeting. After an investigation, the agency issued a
decision finding no discrimination. Complainant appeals the January 9,
2004 decision.
The record indicates that complainant, during the time in question, was
working as a full time mail processor, PS-4, assigned to the Milwaukee
Processing and Distribution Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On June
21, 2001, an Emergency Town Hall Meeting was held at the facility.
The agency states, in its decision, that a town meeting was held after:
several anonymous voice mail messages to come observe interactions
and behaviors between management/management; management/craft and
craft/craft. [Management] further stated that it was determined immediate
steps needed to be taken to address the escalating unrest based on past
events, union expressed concerns, the growing number of incidents and
input from complaint investigations about the workplace environment.
Management, thus decided to hold a meeting on all three tours. However,
a certified interpreter was not available for tour 3. The agency argues
that complainant was not denied a reasonable accommodation because the
agency attempted to �use people who knew some sign language.� The agency
also argues that certified interpreters were used in a subsequent meeting
and some of the same topics were covered. Thus, the agency argues it,
in good faith, accommodated complainant. Complainant alleges she was not
accommodated when the agency failed to provide a certified sign language
interpreter at the meeting.
An �individual with a disability� is one who: (1) has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
(2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such
an impairment. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g). Major life activities include,
but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,
walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(i). We note that the agency does not challenge that
complainant is an individual with a disability within the meaning of
the Rehabilitation Act.
Complainant must also show that she is a �qualified� individual with
a disability within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). The term
�qualified individual with a disability,� with respect to employment,
is defined as a disabled person who, with or without a reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position held
or desired. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m).
Under Commission regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable
accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of a
qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that
accommodations would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(o); 29
C.F.R. � 1630.2(p). This includes providing a reasonable accommodation
so that an individual can perform the essential functions of her
job, as well as enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of employment
enjoyed by employees without disabilities. See Appendix to Part 1630 -
Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(�Interpretive Guidance�), � 1630.2(o).
Here, we find that the recapping of the meeting at subsequent meetings
constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances.
See McNeil v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A40468
(May 13, 2005). We remind complainant that she is not entitled to
the accommodation of her choice. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance of
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, question 9 (October 1, 2002). Here, the meetings
were called at the last minute, and the agency attempted to secure the
services of interpreters, but could not do so. As an alternative, the
agency provided the information in a subsequent meeting. Thus, we find
the agency, in good faith, attempted to secure a qualified interpreter,
and in this case, provided a reasonable accommodation. Because of our
disposition, we do not address whether complainant is an individual with
a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
The agency's decision is 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 12, 2005
__________________
Date