Russell F. Terhaar, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (N.E./N.Y Metro Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 20, 1999
01974557 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 1999)

01974557

05-20-1999

Russell F. Terhaar, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (N.E./N.Y Metro Region), Agency.


Russell F. Terhaar, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01974557

v. ) Agency No. 1B-145-1010-95

) Hearing No. 160-95-8525X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(N.E./N.Y Metro Region), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disabilities

(fissures and nervous condition), in violation of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq. Appellant alleges he was

discriminated against when he was harassed by the agency between June 4,

1994, and February, 1995, and his employment was terminated on February 9,

1995. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The record reveals that appellant, a GS-4 Mail Handler at the agency's

Rochester, New York, Processing & Distribution Center, entered into a

Last Chance Agreement (LCA) with the agency on April 6, 1994, which

placed appellant on probation, stayed his termination for two (2)

years, and allowed the agency to terminate appellant within seven (7)

days if he failed to maintain satisfactory conduct and work attendance

during the probation. Appellant was notified that his employment would

be terminated effective February 9, 1995, for violating the terms of the

LCA, generally involving frequent absences from his work station, related

and unrelated to his use of the restroom.<1> Believing he was a victim

of discrimination, appellant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently,

filed a formal complaint on February 21, 1995, alleging that the agency

had discriminated against him as referenced above. At the conclusion of

the investigation, appellant received a copy of the investigative report

and requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a

Recommended Decision (RD), finding no discrimination.

The AJ concluded that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case

of disability discrimination as there is insufficient medical evidence

of a mental impairment, and his documented physical impairments were

not proven to be substantial enough to affect any major life activities,

including the ability to care for himself or perform his job duties.<2>

In so finding, the AJ noted that the lack of medical evidence regarding

the extent of appellant's physical impairment precluded a finding that

he has a disability which substantially limits his ability to perform

his job. The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD. Appellant makes no new

contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we affirm the FAD.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the

AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate

regulations, policies, and laws. We agree with the AJ's finding

that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability

discrimination as he presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate

a mental impairment or that the extent of his physical impairments

substantially limited any major life activities. We thus discern no basis

to disturb the AJ's findings of no discrimination which were based on

a detailed assessment of the record. Therefore, after a careful review

of the record and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in

this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the

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 the

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. � 1614.604(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 the 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 the 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 the 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. 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:

May 20, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 Appellant alleges that he suffers from physical and mental impairments

which require him to use the restroom frequently.

2 The AJ further found that appellant presented no evidence that there

was a record of, or that the agency regarded him as having, an impairment

which substantially limited one or more major life activities.