01a35287
12-15-2005
Patricia A. Bilowus-Claar, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Patricia A. Bilowus-Claar v. Department of the Interior
01A35287
December 15, 2005
.
Patricia A. Bilowus-Claar,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A35287
Agency No. FNP-03-008
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the FAD properly determined that
the agency did not discriminate against complainant as alleged below.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant who is
legally blind, was employed as a Visitor Use Assistant at the agency's
National Park Service facility at the Alaska Public Lands Information
Center for the summer season from May 17, 2002 through September 28,
2002. During her session at the agency, complainant requested several
accommodations including large font printed materials such as training
materials and brochures; large font labels for the storage area; a large
screen computer monitor maintaining her unique settings as default;
CC TV; and e-mails sent to her home e-mail address. She asserted
that the agency failed to provide her with these accommodations.
In addition, she believed that the agency's failure to provide her with
her requested accommodations was part of a hostile work environment
created by management.
As a result, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on November 8, 2002, alleging that she was
discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment on
the bases of disability (legally blind-caused by diabetic retinopathy)
and reprisal when:
Her requests for reasonable accommodation were denied;
Complainant overheard two co-workers refer to another employee as
�carpal tunnel boy;�
Complainant's request to remain with the agency after the summer session
as a volunteer in order to receive proper training on the closed circuit
television system (CC TV)<1> was denied; and
Negative comments were placed in her performance appraisal.<2>
In documents accompanying her formal complaint, complainant indicated
how she cried and struggled to work without the requested accommodations.
The agency dismissed the basis of reprisal for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). Specifically, the agency noted
that complainant had no prior EEO activity. At the conclusion of the
investigation, complainant was informed of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final
decision by the agency. Complainant requested that the agency issue a
final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant established that
she is an individual with a disability substantially limited in the
major life activity of seeing. Additionally, the agency determined
that complainant was qualified in that she could perform the essential
functions of her position. The FAD found that it provided complainant
with accommodations as opposed to complainant's assertion in claim (1).
As for claim (2), the FAD determined that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case for complainant did not show that any action was taken
towards her nor was the incident severe or pervasive enough to establish
a hostile work environment. The FAD concluded that the preponderance
of the evidence did not establish that the agency discriminated against
complainant as alleged in claim (3). Finally, as to claim (4), the
FAD determined that complainant has not demonstrated that the comment
regarding her performance was motivated by discriminatory animus.
On appeal, complainant contends that the investigation was incomplete
and that the investigator failed to contact her witnesses. Complainant
also contests the agency's findings that she was provided all requested
accommodations. Complainant did not contest the dismissal of the basis
of reprisal.<3> The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Reasonable Accommodation (Claim 1)
Under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make
reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of
an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can
show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9.
As a threshold matter in a case of disability discrimination under a
failure to accommodate theory, complainant must demonstrate that she is an
"individual with a disability." EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g)
defines an individual with a disability as one who has a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of that person's
major life activities or has a record of such 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.
The record indicates that complainant was first diagnosed with
diabetic retinopathy seventeen years ago which changed her vision
almost immediately. She stated that for a time in college, her condition
caused a blockage that prevented her from seeing altogether. Complainant
provided medical documentation from her physician dated April 3, 2002,
stating that she was �legally blind.�<4> Specifically, the documentation
indicated that complainant had traction retinal detachment in her right
eye. Complainant also averred in her affidavit that in her right eye,
she can see some movements at best. Her eyesight from her right eye is
not even enough to be judged on a distance 20 scale. As to her left eye,
the physician stated that her vision is stable at 20/400 acuity with no
chance of improvement. With what vision complainant has, the physician
stated that she was still profoundly visually impaired. In order to
read, she needed documents printed in at least 24 to 36 point font.<5>
Based on the severity of complainant's vision impairment, we find that
complainant is an individual with an impairment which substantially
limits her in the major life activity of seeing.
Complainant also must 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. Id. In the case at hand, complainant was selected for
her position as a Visitor Use Assistant and could perform her position
with or without a reasonable accommodation. Therefore, we conclude
that complainant is a qualified individual with a disability and that
the agency was required to make reasonable accommodation. The record
indicates that complainant requested the following accommodations:
large font printed materials; large font labels; large screen computer
monitor maintaining her unique settings as default; CC TV; and e-mails
sent to her home e-mail address.
Large Font Printed Materials
When complainant received a telephone call from the manager (Manager)
offering her the Visitor Use Assistant position, she disclosed to him that
she had a severe disability and would probably need some modifications.
The Manager stated that they could discuss it when complainant started
her training on May 17th. Complainant also averred that she told the
Manager, via e-mail, that she needed printed material to be in at least
24 point font in order for her to read them. She noted that this was
needed for the training materials, written schedules, internal memoranda,
and so forth. She averred that it is more than an issue of using a
magnifying glass to read documents in 10 or 12 point font. She stated
that she needs a magnification of 24 or 36 point font in order to be
able to effectively read.
She averred that on her first day on the job on May 17, 2002, she filled
out several forms and disclosed her impairment. She also stated on those
documents that she needed large print in order to be able to do her job.
Complainant was given her training materials in a three to four inch
thick binder. Despite her e-mail with the Manager, all of the materials
in the binder were printed in 10 to 12 point font. As a result, during
the two-week training, complainant was unable to read the materials and
management did not provide her with large-font materials. In addition
to the training materials, complainant asked that written schedules,
internal memoranda, and so forth be provided in large font. In addition,
on June 4, 2002, complainant requested that the agency provide her with
a few things in large print including a list of daily films, lengths
and showing times for the audio visual area where she worked daily.
The Manager averred that all schedules and brochures were available in
large print. The Supervisor also indicated that complainant's schedule
was printed in a larger font size and coded in black. In addition,
the record indicated that co-workers and students were available to
provide complainant with assistance by reading to her.
Upon review of the record, complainant clearly requested training
materials in a format she could read. Complainant was never provided with
any accommodation that would allow her to read her training materials.
As a result, complainant could not prepare or do research for her
position. Further, as to management's assertion that all schedules and
brochures were available in large font, the record does not support
such an assertion. Complainant was not given materials such as daily
film times which she needed in order to assist visitors. In addition,
complainant requested assistance from her co-workers to read from texts
and handouts. Although some assisted, complainant provided instances
where her co-workers were not willing to assist her. Therefore, the
use of co-workers was not effective.
Large Font Labels
In addition to printed materials, complainant indicated that she could not
read the labels in the brochure storage area. She had requested that the
labels be changed. When the Manager made no changes to the storage area,
complainant replaced labels with index cards using 36 point font. When she
had replaced nearly 90% of the labels, she claimed that management had the
index cards removed and replaced with 20 point font labels. As a result,
she could not locate most brochures by herself. Complainant argued that
she had to rely on co-workers to retrieve brochures with the 20 point
font labels.
The Manager stated that in June, the storage areas were re-labeled.
Despite complainant's efforts to change the labels in the storage area to
a font she could read, management had the labels replaced with a smaller
font. None of the management officials address complainant's assertion
that she could not read the 20 point font labels made by management.
Large Screen Computer with Maintenance of Her Unique Settings
After her training was completed, complainant averred that she requested
a large screen computer monitor. In June 2002, the agency provided
complainant with a large screen computer for the computer station which
complainant and other employees used. On June 9, 2002, complainant
indicated that she informed the Manager of the need for her to maintain
her unique settings on the monitor. Complainant indicated that other
staff members who also used the same computer station would change the
settings to smaller fonts. As a result, she could not log on in order to
use the computer. She also requested Netscape Communicator so that she
can increase the size of the text once she was logged into the computer.
The record indicated that Netscape Communicator was provided.
The agency showed that it provided complainant with the computer
monitor with the appropriate software, however, the agency failed to
allow complainant to maintain her unique settings on the monitor. As a
result, complainant could not log into the computer in order to use it
or the Netscape Communicator. Therefore, we cannot find that the agency
provided complainant with an effective accommodation.
CC TV
Complainant requested the CC TV system in order to view documents in a
large format. The agency did not provide complainant with the CC TV.
However, management officials stated that they arranged transportation
at least once a week for complainant to go to the library where a reader
was available in lieu of the CC TV.<6>
Although the agency was not obligated to provide complainant the CC TV,
it did need to provide complainant with an effective accommodation
which would allow her to read brochures and other documents such as
maps in order to assist visitors to the center as part of her duties.
Complainant also could not conduct any research.<7> Management
asserted that complainant was provided with access to the local library.
Complainant indicated that she was permitted to use the library. However,
complainant contradicted the agency's assertion that they arranged for
transportation. Instead, she asserted that in order to get to the library
she would have to use the public bus. Further, complainant averred that
the equipment at the library was old and she could not adjust the focus
on the equipment. Therefore, regardless of whether transportation to
the library was arranged, the use of the library was not an effective
accommodation for complainant due to the equipment available.
Complainant's Home E-mail
Complainant also requested that e-mails be sent to her home e-mail
address. Complainant made this request so that she could easily
manipulate the size of the font in order to read the e-mails. The
Manager generally averred that complainant's home e-mail was added to
e-mail lists so that she could access it from home on her large screen.
The Supervisor averred that all papers handed out to the employees
were also available via e-mail. Complainant noted that she did not
receive work e-mails at her home e-mail address which were sent by the
Supervisor from his home. Therefore, complainant has shown that she
did not receive all work related e-mails at her home e-mail address and
therefore complainant could not read the text of those e-mails.
The agency was obligated to provide complainant with reasonable
accommodations which would have allowed complainant to read the written
material she needed to perform the duties of her position. We note that
the agency was not obligated to provide the most expensive accommodation
such as the CCTV or the one of complainant's choice. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9;
see also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and
Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002,
Question 9 (revised October 17, 2002); Polen v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01970984 (January 16, 2001). We acknowledge that the
agency took steps to accommodate complainant's disability. However, we
find that the agency's efforts were not effective. In particular, we note
that the endeavors were inconsistently provided such as co-workers reading
written material to complainant or inadequately addressed complainant's
needs such as the 20 point labels in the storage area or the large
screen monitor with small font settings for complainant to input her
user ID and password. Therefore, by failing to reasonably accommodate
complainant, we conclude that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act.
Disparate Treatment (Claims 3 & 4)
A claim of disparate treatment based on indirect evidence is examined
under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail,
she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by
presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration
was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567
(1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met
its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade
the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted
on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the
third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of
whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal
Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Claim (3)
In claim (3), complainant stated that the agency ignored her request
to be initiated as a volunteer in the Fall 2002/Spring 2003 session
in order to follow up on her accommodation requests, namely the CCTV.
We note that volunteers usually are not protected �employees.� See
EEOC Compliance Manual, EEOC No. 915.003, Chapter 2, page 28 (July 21,
2005). An individual may be considered an employee of an agency if, as
a result of volunteer service, she receives benefits such as a pension,
group life insurance, workers' compensation, and access to professional
certification. Id. In the case at hand, complainant indicated that other
volunteers had received stipends and trips to other parks. She noted
that the main reason she wanted to volunteer was to gain experience on
the CCTV. We find that the record was not sufficiently developed to
show that complainant states a claim as to the volunteer work.
However, the agency addressed the merits of claim (3). Even if claim
(3) were a viable claim, we would find that the agency articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. The Manager averred
that complainant did make inquiries towards the end of her season
and that he noted that such requests are done after a person leaves.
The Supervisor stated that he was highly in favor of complainant
volunteering in the Fall 2002/ Spring 2003 session and encouraged her to
follow through with the application process. However, as the Lead Park
Ranger averred, complainant did not fill out an application in order
to volunteer. In addition, he indicated that volunteer applications
were freely available. Complainant failed to show that the agency's
reason was pretext.
Claim (4)
In claim (4), complainant claimed that negative comments were placed in
her performance appraisal. The Supervisor indicated that he noted that
complainant should consult with him before dealing with outside agencies
because he became aware that complainant and others were talking to other
agencies without consulting the park rangers. Upon review, we find that
the agency has provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
action in claim (4). Complainant provided no evidence or argument to
establish that the agency's reasons were pretext.
Accordingly, we conclude that complainant had not shown that the agency's
actions alleged in claims (3) and (4) were discriminatory.
Harassment (Claims 1 & 2)
It is well-settled that harassment based on an individual's disability
is actionable. In order to establish a claim of harassment under
those bases, the complainant must show that: (1) she is a qualified
individual with a disability covered under the Rehabilitation Act; (2)
she was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (3) the harassment complained of
was based on her disability; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a
basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Flowers v. Southern
Reg'l Physician Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Fox
v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001). The harasser's
conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable
person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris
v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
Complainant alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment
due to the denial of reasonable accommodations and co-workers referred
to another colleague as �carpal tunnel boy.� Upon review of the record,
complainant failed to provide evidence that the harassment complained
of was based on her disability. Therefore, we conclude that complainant
has not established a claim of a hostile work environment.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD's finding
of no discrimination on claims (2), (3), and (4). However, we REVERSE
the agency's final decision regarding the claim (1). Accordingly, we
remand this case to the agency to take remedial actions in accordance
with this decision and Order below.
ORDER (C0900)
The agency is ordered to take the following remedial action:
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall give complainant a notice of her right to submit
objective evidence (pursuant to the guidance given in Carle v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993)) in support
of her claim for compensatory damages. Complainant shall submit her
claim for compensatory damages within forty-five (45) calendar days
of the date she receives the agency's notice. Within forty-five (45)
calendar days of the date the agency receives complainant's claim for
compensatory damages, the agency shall complete the investigation on
the claim. Thereafter, the agency shall process the claim in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
The agency is directed to conduct training for the Manager and the
Supervisor who were found to have violated the Rehabilitation Act.
The agency shall address these employees' responsibilities with respect
to the Rehabilitation Act.
Consider taking disciplinary action against the Manager and the
Supervisor identified as being responsible for denying complainant's
reasonable accommodation requests. The agency shall report its
decision. If the agency decides to take disciplinary action, it
shall identify the action taken. If the agency decides not to take
disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision
not to impose discipline.
The agency shall complete all of the above actions within 120 calendar
days from the date on which the decision becomes final.
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 verifying
that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its National Park Service facility at
the Alaska Public Lands Information Center 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 (K0501)
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)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 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 (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:
______________________________
Stephen Llewellyn
Acting Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
December 15, 2005
__________________
Date
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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), 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 DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing,
promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of
employment.
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service facility at the
Alaska Public Lands Information Center, supports and will comply with
such Federal law and will not take action against individuals because
they have exercised their rights under law.
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service facility at the
Alaska Public Lands Information Center, has been ordered to remedy an
employee affected by the Commission's finding that she was discriminated
against because of her disability. As a remedy for the discrimination,
the agency was ordered, among other things, to consider the affected
employee's claim for compensatory damages. The Department of the
Interior, National Park Service facility at the Alaska Public Lands
Information Center, 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.
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service facility at the
Alaska Public Lands Information Center, 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 The CC TV system was a scanning device that scanned written material
and then projected it onto the monitor in large format.
2 The negative comment referred to in the performance appraisal was
the following: �Initiative is good, but when dealing with the entities
outside our facility, the lead staff needs to be appraised with the
situation first. We may have the answer or be aware of reasons and
procedures you are not aware of.�
3Therefore, this decision shall not address the agency's dismissal of
the basis of reprisal. However, we remind the agency that requesting
a reasonable accommodation is considered EEO activity.
4Although there is no indication within the record of any corrective
devices, we note that the Social Security Administration defines �legally
blind� as vision that cannot be corrected to better than 20/200 in the
better eye.
5The record indicated that complainant had her husband present during
the investigative interview in order to read documents for her that were
in standard (10 to 12 point) font.
6The Manager indicated that the CC TV arrived in late September/early
October after complainant's seasonal employment ended.
7We note that complainant has not explained what type of research was
required for her position as a Visitor Use Assistant. Therefore, it is
unclear within the record if research was a function of her position.