01992867
11-14-2000
Lizandro Mateo-Ortiz, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency,
Lizandro Mateo-Ortiz, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01992867
) Agency No.4H-330-0135-97
) Hearing No. 150-97-8662X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency, )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission) from a final agency decision concerning his
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of �
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791
et. seq.<1> Accordingly, the appeal is accepted in accordance with 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644,37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the agency discriminated against
complainant on the basis of physical disability (post dislocation of
the right shoulder) when he was denied a position with the agency on
October 16, 1996.
BACKGROUND
Complainant, a school bus driver, applied for a job at the agency's
Miami, Florida Post Office. On September 14, 1995, he was listed
as qualified for numerous positions on the agency's job register.<2>
Complainant's name was reached on the hiring register and he received
a Call-In-Notice on December 20, 1995, to report for an interview
for a Distribution and Window Clerk position (the Position), and was
subsequently scheduled for a pre-employment physical examination on June
26, 1996, as a pre-requisite to being offered the Position.
The agency medical officer (MO) referred complainant to an orthopedic
specialist (Doctor I) for further examination because of a shoulder injury
complainant suffered twelve years earlier in the military.<3> Doctor I
reported to the MO that complainant should avoid the type of activities
that were listed as the functional requirements of the Position, that
he was at high risk for future injury on the job and was not medically
qualified to perform the essential functions of the Position.<4> He
further noted that accommodation would not reduce the medical risk if
complainant had to lift heavy weights. On August 14, 1996, the agency
notified complainant that he was found medically unsuitable for the
Position because his multiple, re-current dislocations of the right
shoulder were incompatible with the strenuous activities required for
the Position and would place his health and safety at risk. <5>
The agency's notice informed complainant that he could request
reconsideration if he provided additional medical information indicating
that he was medically suitable. Complainant thus sought a second medical
opinion from another orthopedic specialist (Doctor II). Complainant
forwarded Doctor II's report and two Magnetic Resonance Images (MRIs)
taken in May 1994, and August 1996, to the agency. Doctor II reported
that complainant suffered fifteen dislocations of the right shoulder in
the past twelve years,<6> that the MRIs of the right shoulder were normal,
that complainant had full, unlimited range of motion in the shoulders,
and that he saw no reason why complainant could not perform the duties
of a postal worker.
Doctor I reviewed Doctor II's report and conceded that he may have
misheard complainant when complainant stated he had fifteen prior
dislocations. Doctor I stated that he believed complainant could do
light activities with his shoulder but did not feel that he should be in
a type of job where he would do twisting with his shoulder or extensive
heavy lifting with his arm because of the risk of further dislocation
and the need for surgery.<7>
Doctor I examined complainant again on October 16, 1996, and reported that
because Doctor II believed he could safely do the job, and complainant was
adamant in pursuing the Position, he could probably do the job. Doctor
I noted that there was a risk of re-dislocation but cleared complainant
for the Position.
On October 16, 1996, the Personnel Specialist (the Specialist) notified
complainant that the agency's decision remained the same and that there
was no provision for further reconsideration. The Specialist also
notified complainant that his name was removed from the register for
that position.
Complainant nevertheless sought a third medical opinion. Doctor III
reported that he examined complainant and reviewed the MRIs. He reported
that he read the job description for the Position and believed that
complainant appeared qualified to perform those duties.
Doctor I reviewed Doctor III's report and, reversing his earlier
statement, noted that, in his opinion, complainant was not able to perform
the functional requirements of the Position. The Specialist then wrote
to complainant on November 25, 1996, reaffirming the agency's position and
advising complainant that further reconsideration would not be granted.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint and requested a hearing. At the
hearing, the Specialist testified that she received very clear
recommendations from the MO and Doctor I, and based on their medical
opinions, denied complainant employment because he was at high risk
of injury. She decided that complainant was unable to perform in other
agency positions because the lifting requirement was the same in all of
the positions except that of Mark-Up. The Specialist testified that a
challenge to a determination of physical unsuitability had the effect
of removing an applicant's name from the active list of eligibles
for all other positions for which the applicant is rated and found
qualified. Thus, complainant received no other Call-In-Notices despite
the fact that his name was certified on several registers. She further
testified that the agency provides reasonable accommodation only if an
individual is a qualified disabled person and noted that complainant
was not considered to be disabled.
The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Recommended Decision finding
that the agency discriminated against complainant. The AJ found that
nothing in complainant's medical evaluations or employment history
suggested that his shoulder condition rose to the level of an impairment
that substantially limited a major life activity,<8> however, she found
that the agency regarded complainant as disabled within the meaning of the
Rehabilitation Act because it regarded him as substantially limited in his
ability to work. The AJ found that the agency believed that complainant
should not lift up to 70 pounds, pull hand over hand, or reach above his
shoulder level. She noted that such limiting criteria did not relate to
a unique aspect of the Position, but excluded complainant from a class
of jobs, and that the MO and Specialist determined that complainant's
shoulder condition prevented him from obtaining any position at the
agency aside from Mark-Up Clerk.
The AJ found that complainant was a qualified person with a disability
because he met the experience and educational requirements for the
position as evidenced by his initial selection by the agency. The AJ
further found that the agency's action of rejecting complainant for
the Position was causally related to his shoulder condition, since his
physical condition was the sole reason for the rejection.
The AJ noted that an employer does not escape responsibility by merely
stating that an applicant may injure himself,<9> noting the Commission's
decision in Burkey v. Department of Justice, EEOC Petition 03950146
(January 19, 1996) in which the Commission stated that the agency must
show more than that the individual with a disability stands an elevated
risk of future injury.
The AJ then considered the essential functions of the Position. She
reviewed the functions the agency witnesses insisted that complainant
was unable to perform; namely, lifting up to 70 pounds, reaching above
shoulder level, and pulling hand over hand, and examined the duties and
responsibilities of the Position.<10> The AJ stated that she was not
persuaded that performance of these duties posed a reasonable probability
complainant would injure himself and found that the agency failed to meet
its burden. The AJ found that the record did not indicate whether the
MO and Specialist considered complainant's work history in determining
that complainant was medically unsuitable. The AJ noted that the record
did not reflect what duties complainant performed in the military after
his first dislocation, but that complainant's current job, driving a
school bus, required using an oversized steering wheel and making sharp
twists and turns. The AJ further noted that Doctor I's conclusion that
complainant was at high risk for injuring himself was not explained or
substantiated in detail. The AJ found, consequently, that the agency
regarded complainant as disabled and discriminated against him on that
basis when it did not hire him for the Position, and that, as a qualified
individual with a disability, the agency had an obligation to accommodate
his physical impairment or demonstrate that such accommodation would
constitute an undue hardship on its operations.
The agency issued a final decision rejecting the AJ's recommended
decision. The agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of disability discrimination because he did not show that
he had an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity,
or show that the agency considered him to be disabled. The agency noted
that the MO found complainant to be medically unsuitable to perform the
functions of the Position and incompatible with the position requirements.
The agency found that the record did not show that complainant was
unable to perform the duties of other jobs and that he was still being
considered for other jobs at the agency. The agency noted that the
trier of fact should not substitute her judgment for the legitimate
exercise of managerial discretion, and that the focus should be on the
employer's motive, not its business judgment, adding that nothing in the
record indicated that the agency's action was motivated by discrimination.
Complainant appealed, arguing that the agency offered no basis to disturb
the AJ's recommended decision. Complainant argued that the agency's
contention that he was considered for other jobs was false because the
Specialist testified that his shoulder condition would preclude him from
working at any agency job and his name was withdrawn from the agency
register for all jobs.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
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 that discrimination occurred
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 AJ's
findings and conclusions summarized the relevant facts and referenced the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We find that complainant was
a qualified disabled individual within the meaning of the Rehabilitation
Act, and that the agency discriminated against him based on his disability
when it denied him a position because of his disability.
To bring a claim of disability discrimination, complainant must
first establish that he has a disability within the meaning of the
Rehabilitation Act.<11> Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527
U.S. 516 (1999); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999);
Albertsons, Inc., v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999); Cook v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960015 (June 21, 1996)
(To merit the protection of the Rehabilitation Act, it is not enough
to have a particular medical condition that carries the potential for
substantial limitations).
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, complainant
must show 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) the agency took an adverse
action against him. See Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662
F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981). Complainant also must demonstrate a causal
relationship between his disabling condition and the agency's reasons
for the adverse action.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g) defines an individual with a
disability as one who: 1) has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities,
2) has a record of such impairment, or 3) is regarded as having such an
impairment. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(h)(2)(i) defines "major
life activities" as including the functions of caring for one's self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning, and working.
Complainant also must show that he is a "qualified" individual with a
disability within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). That section
defines a qualified individual with a disability as meaning, with
respect to employment, an individual with a disability who, with or
without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions
of the position in question.
Once complainant establishes that he is disabled under the Rehabilitation
Act, he must show that the agency took an adverse action against him,
and that a causal connection exists between the agency's action and
his disability. Dougherty v. Department of the Army, EEOC Petition
No. 03960044 (July 12, 1996); Shoemaker v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Petition No. 03930160 (January 4, 1994); Perry v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 03930144 (December 16, 1993).
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant is disabled within the
meaning of the regulations. Although complainant's shoulder condition
is not documented as substantially limiting one or more of his major
life activities, the Commission finds that the agency regarded him as
substantially limited in his ability to work based on Doctor I's first
diagnosis. Doctor I reported that complainant's shoulder condition
precluded him from performing the essential functions and strenuous
activities of the Position. The agency then denied complainant the
Distribution and Window Clerk Position and removed his name from the
register of all other jobs based on its perception that complainant
could not perform any strenuous activity.
The Commission further finds that complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability based on the evidence of record which shows that
complainant was listed as qualified for the Position and for several
other positions at the agency. The Commission finds that the agency's
action was causally related to complainant's shoulder condition. The
agency found complainant medically unsuited for the Position. But for
complainant's perceived disability, the agency would have hired him.
In effect, the agency claims that complainant probably would be injured.
However, the medical report from Doctor I noted that there was a risk that
complainant might require future surgery for his shoulder, but failed to
diagnose a condition that posed a substantial threat of serious injury.
In fact, in his October 16, 1996 report, Doctor I cleared complainant
for the Position.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that
the AJ's findings and conclusions summarized the relevant facts and
referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We find
questionable the Specialist's decision to deny complainant the Position
after Doctor I cleared complainant in his October 16, 1996 report.
We find the Specialist regarded complainant as disabled and deemed
him medically unsuitable for the Position and all other positions for
which he qualified. Although Doctor I noted that there was a risk of
future injury to complainant's shoulder that would require surgery,
and that complainant should avoid twisting and turning motions with
his shoulder or lifting heavy weights, both Doctors II and III reported
that complainant could perform the essential functions of the Position.
The AJ noted that complainant was performing twisting motions with his
shoulder in his current job. As such, the Commission finds that the
agency discriminated against complainant when it did not hire him for
a position for which he was qualified.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency is REVERSED and REMANDED for
further processing in accordance with this decision and the proper
regulations.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:
The agency shall place the complainant in either the Distribution and
Window Clerk position or a substantially equivalent position to that of
Distribution and Window Clerk no later than thirty (30) calendar days
after the date this decision becomes final.
The agency shall pay to complainant back pay retroactive to October 16,
1996, the date on which complainant was notified that he would not be
hired as a Distribution and Window Clerk. If complainant declines to be
placed in the Distribution and Window Clerk position, or a substantially
equivalent position, the agency shall pay complainant back pay and
other benefits for the period from October 16, 1996, until the date of
the offer.
The issue of compensatory damages is REMANDED to the Hearings Unit of
the Miami District Office. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall
issue a decision on these issues in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,657 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109), and the agency
shall issue a final action in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,657-58 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110) within forty
(40) days of receipt of the Administrative Judge's decision. The agency
shall submit copies of the Administrative Judge's decision and the final
agency action to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.
The agency shall pay complainant's reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
The agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay (with
interest, if applicable) and other benefits due complainant, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501, no later than sixty (60) calendar days after
the date this decision becomes final. The complainant shall cooperate
in the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits
due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by the agency.
If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or
benefits, the agency shall issue a check to the complainant for the
undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the
agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The complainant
may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute.
The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the
Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled
"Implementation of the Commission's Decision."
The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as
provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's
Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the
agency's calculation of back pay and other benefits due complainant,
including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its Miami, Florida facility copies of
the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the
agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the agency
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii), he/she is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid
by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees
to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of
the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right
to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order
prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29
C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively,
the complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File
A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action
for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the
complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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:
November 14, 2000
Date
Frances
M.
Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
An Agency of the United States Government
This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission dated which found that a
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
791 et seq., has occurred at this facility.
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee
or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or PHYSICAL or MENTAL DISABILITY with respect
to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions
or privileges of employment.
The United States Postal Service, Miami, Florida supports and will
comply with such Federal law and will not take action against individuals
because they have exercised their rights under law.
The United States Postal Service, Miami, Florida has been found to have
discriminated against an applicant for employment through the hiring
process. The agency has been ordered to retroactively hire the applicant
as a result of the discrimination, and award back pay. The United States
Postal Service, Miami, Florida will ensure that officials responsible
for personnel decisions and terms and conditions of employment will
abide by the requirements of all Federal equal employment opportunity
laws and will not retaliate against employees who file EEO complaints.
The United States Postal Service, Miami, Florida will not in any manner
restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate against any individual who
exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful by, or
who participates in proceedings pursuant to, Federal equal employment
opportunity law.
_____________________________
Date Posted: _____________________
Posting Expires: __________________
29 C.F.R. Part 1614
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 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.
2 These included clerk, carrier, distribution clerk, flat sorter machine
operator, markup clerk, mail handler, and mail processor.
3 Complainant has a service-related 20% disability for his right shoulder
through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
4 Doctor I noted that complainant told him he suffered 50 dislocations
in the past 12 years and that when his shoulder dislocates, he repositions
it himself without further complication. He stated that complainant told
him that he does not swim or throw a ball because these motions would
dislocate his shoulder, but that as long as he did not have to perform
a throwing motion he would not have a problem with future dislocation.
Doctor I stated that he believed that if it were simply a matter of
refraining from performing throwing motions, complainant would not
have had 50 dislocations over the past 12 years. Doctor I noted that
until complainant's shoulder was stabilized by reconstructive surgery,
he should avoid the activities listed as the functional requirements of
the position.
5 The Position required heavy lifting of up to 70 pounds, heavy carrying
of over 45 pounds, straight pulling for eight hours, pulling hand over
hand, and repetitive use of the wrists and fingers.
6 Complainant stated that Doctor I misquoted him when he told Doctor I
that he had 15 dislocations.
7 Doctor I noted that complainant was able to lift 70 pounds but was
concerned that the rotating motion involved in lifting would cause
complainant's shoulder to dislocate.
8 The AJ noted that a determination by the VA that a person has a
service-related disability does not per se make that person a qualified
person with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.
9 Citing Bentivegna v. U.S. Department of Labor, 694 F.2d 619, 622
(9th Cir. 1982).
10 These included selling stamps, postal cards, and money order
certificates; accepting window deliveries of parcels, registered mail,
collecting postage due fees, issuing receipts and delivering mail to
customers; issuing and cashing money orders; renting post office boxes,
receiving rental payments, conducting reference checks and completing
forms; providing information to customers on postal regulations, rates
and mailing restrictions; setting postage meters, maintaining records of
mail, labeling and tying mail for dispatch, opening and dumping pouches
and sacks; and performing miscellaneous clerical duties.
11 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.