Mary A. Schake, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 13, 2003
07A20045 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 13, 2003)

07A20045

03-13-2003

Mary A. Schake, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Mary A. Schake v. United States Postal Service

07A20045

March 13, 2003

.

Mary A. Schake,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 07A20045

Agency No. 4C-150-005-00

DECISION

The agency filed a timely appeal with this Commission concerning

complainant's equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. and

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as

amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. In the underlying complaint, filed

on March 16, 2000, complainant, a clerk at the agency's Greensburg

Mail Processing Center in Youngwood, Pennsylvania, alleged she was

discriminated against on the bases of age (date of birth: April 16, 1952)

and disability (panic disorder, anxiety, depression) when she was denied

a light duty work assignment on or about February 21, 2000.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy

of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,

finding that complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to

age or disability discrimination. In so finding, the AJ first noted

complainant did not provide any evidence that raised an inference of age

discrimination. The AJ then found that although complainant established

a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the agency provided

her with a reasonable accommodation and therefore did not subject her

to discrimination on the basis of disability.

On October 26, 2001, the agency issued a final order stating that it

would implement the Administrative Judge 's finding of no discrimination,

but would appeal because it disagreed with the Administrative Judge's

predicate legal determination that complainant established a prima facie

case of disability discrimination. The agency's appeal was docketed

as EEOC Appeal No. 07A20045. In its brief, the agency contends that

complainant is not an individual with a disability within the meaning

of the Rehabilitation Act and therefore did not establish a prima facie

case of disability discrimination.

In response, complainant argues that the agency's appeal should be

dismissed because in its final order the agency agreed to fully implement

the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Complainant further contends

that, assuming that agency's appeal is accepted, the AJ's finding that

she established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of

disability is supported by substantial evidence. Complainant did not

file an appeal of the agency's decision to implement the AJ's finding

of no discrimination.

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(a), if the agency's final order "does

not fully implement the decision of the administrative judge, then the

agency shall simultaneously file an appeal in accordance with � 1614.403

and append a copy of the appeal to the final order." In the instant

case, we find that the agency did not have grounds for appeal under this

provision, since the agency's final order adopted the Administrative

Judge's finding of no discrimination. An appeal is properly taken by an

agency when it declines to implement the Administrative Judge's finding

or any portion of the order of relief. The agency has, in its appeal,

asked the Commission to review solely whether or not the Administrative

Judge was correct in determining that complainant was an individual with

a disability under the Rehabilitation Act and therefore established a

prima facie case of discrimination, notwithstanding that the agency has

already decided to implement the Administrative Judge's finding of no

discrimination. Accordingly, the purpose of the appeal is not to address

the ultimate disposition of the complaint, but to establish a record with

respect to a particular predicate legal conclusion. The Commission's

regulations do not authorize such appeals by the agency. See Vacchiano

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal Nos. 07A10042 & 01A12188

(March 4, 2003). Accordingly, the agency's appeal is dismissed.

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

March 13, 2003

Date