01a00457
07-12-2000
Warena Johnson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Mid West Areas), Agency.
Warena Johnson v. United States Postal Service
01a00457
July 12, 2000
Warena Johnson, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01a00457
v. ) Agency No. 1J-608-0057-98
) Hearing No. 210-99-6254X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Great Lakes/Mid West Areas), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final
decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e
et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges she
was discriminated against on the bases of sex (female) and disability
(migraines and lower back pain), when her Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) leave was denied on several occasions between January 8 and August
24, 1998. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's
final decision.
The record reveals that complainant, a Flat Sorter Machine Operator,
at the agency's Irving Park Road Processing & Distribution Center,
Chicago, Illinois facility filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency
on October 15, 1998, alleging that the agency had discriminated against
her as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing,
the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of disability discrimination because she failed to establish that
she was an individual with a disability. Specifically, complainant
failed to provide any documents or testimony which would show how her
impairments substantially limited a major life activity. The AJ found
complainant failed to provide evidence as to the symptoms, severity or
duration of her impairments. Thus, the AJ found complainant was not an
individual with a disability, nor did she prove she was regarded as such,
or had a record of a disability.
The AJ also found complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of sex discrimination in that she failed to demonstrate that similarly
situated employees not in her protected classes were treated differently
under similar circumstances. For instance, the AJ found that the
supervisor who denied complainant's leave requests also denied leave
requests from males who did not submit appropriate documentation.
In sum, the AJ recommended a finding of no discrimination. On September
21, 1999, the agency issued a final decision adopting the AJ's recommended
decision. On appeal, complainant argues that she has substantial
limitation on major life activities. According to complainant, the
symptoms of her migraines include dizziness, nausea and vomiting.
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 discriminatory intent
did not exist 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 decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. The record reveals
complainant's leave requests were denied when she refused to comply with
procedures and failed to submit appropriate documentation. Complainant
failed to prove the agency's reason for its action was a pretext for
prohibited discrimination. We also note that complainant failed to
present evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex or alleged disability.
We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. 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 agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
July 12, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.