john de john complainant v john e potter postmaster general united states postal

7/23/2019 John de John Complainant v John e Potter Postmaster General United States Postal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-de-john-complainant-v-john-e-potter-postmaster-general-united-states-postal 1/9

JOHN DE JOHN, COMPLAINANT, v. JOHN E. POTTER,..., EEOC DOC 07A20030...

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

EEOC DOC 07A20030 (E.E.O.C.), 2004 WL 1084818

E.E.O.C.

JOHN DE JOHN, COMPLAINANT,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED

STATES POSTAL SERVICE, (EASTERN AREA) AGENCY.

Appeal No. 07A20030

Agency No. 4C-164-0011-00

Hearing No. 170-AO-8515X

May 10, 2004

DECISION

*1 Following its November 5, 2001 final order, the agency filed a timely appeal which the Commission accepts

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. On appeal, the agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of anEEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding that the agency discriminated against complainant on the basis of his

disability. The agency also rejected the AJ's finding that complainant is entitled to compensatory damages. For

the following reasons, the Commission REVERSES the agency's final order.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether the AJ correctly found that the agency denied complainant a reasonable

accommodation and, in doing so, failed to establish that it acted in good faith.

BACKGROUND

Complainant held a bid position of carrier sequence bar code sorter (CSBCS) operator since 1996, when the

CSBCS machines were first installed at the Meadville, Pennsylvania, Post Office. Operation of this machine

requires the operator to load mail onto a conveyor belt, manipulate the mail so that it moves properly through

the machine as it is sorted, use his/her leg to push a mechanism known as a bridge, and trouble shoot operational

problems resulting from mail jams. CSBCS operation requires the operator to stand. In January 1998, complainant

was diagnosed with deep vein thrombophlebitis. This condition causes pain and inflamation in the lower legs

after prolonged standing. Complainant first requested an accommodation regarding this condition in August 1998.

Complainant requested, through his physician, that he be able to elevate his legs several times per day to alleviate

swelling. Complainant was told by the former Postmaster that he could sit when the CSBCS machine was running

and elevate his legs. Complainant continued to alleviate the swelling in this manner for more than a year until

September 1999, when the chair was removed from the machine by a different Postmaster (P1).

P1 caused the chairs to be removed from the machines and ordered all operators to work the machine without

the chairs. Complainant presented to P1 a note from his physician which stated that he needed to be able to sit

periodically during the day to relieve the swelling in his legs. Complainant also verbally requested that P1 reverse

the decision regarding the chairs at the machine due to his condition and his physician's suggestion. P1 refused

to allow complainant to use the chair. P1 told complainant that he must leave the machine and sit at a markup

table for no more than five minutes and then return to run the machine. Complainant objected to this suggestion as

unworkable, to which P1 replied that he could request light duty instead, but that he would not be guaranteed work.

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.405&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)






Complainant could not afford to lose his hours, so he chose to work at the machine without a chair. Complainant

filed a formal complaint on November 1, 1999, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him on the

basis of disability when his request for an accommodation of a chair was denied.

*2 At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided a copy of the investigative report and

requested a hearing before an AJ. Following a hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding discrimination. The AJ

found that complainant proved he was an individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, the

AJ found that complainant's thrombophlebitis is a permanent impairment that substantially limits complainant's

ability to stand. The AJ also found that complainant was qualified to work on the CSBCS machine with

the reasonable accommodation of a chair that he could use intermittently to relieve swelling and pain in his

legs. The AJ further found that the agency did accommodate complainant beginning in August 1998 and then

withdrew the accommodation in September 1999. The AJ found that complainant did offer the agency sufficient

medical documentation in September 1999, including a diagnosis, a description of symptoms and a specific

accommodation, and that the agency failed to accommodate complainant. The AJ found that the agency failed

to show that it would have been an undue hardship to provide the chairs. Finally, the AJ found that the agency's

actions toward complainant did not constitute a good faith effort to reasonably accommodate him. Therefore, the

agency was not relieved of its obligation to award appropriate compensatory damages for its failure to provide

reasonable accommodation.

Based on the finding of discrimination, the AJ awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to complainant.

The AJ awarded complainant $688.58 in pecuniary damages for medical expenses. The AJ determined that

complainant suffered increased physical pain and exacerbation of his condition due to the agency's failure to

accommodate him. Specifically, the AJ found that in an effort to remain standing for four to six hours without

resting his legs complainant began to rely heavily on prescribed and over-the-counter pain pills to get him through

his shift. The AJ also found that during this period, approximately one year, complainant exhausted much of his

leave because on many mornings he was unable to work because his feet would be numb and he would be in severe

pain. The AJ further found that complainant's condition worsened and as the pain increased he increased the use

of pain medication. The AJ found that in August 2000 complainant suffered upper gastro-intestinal bleeding that

caused him to be hospitalized for five days and out of work for an additional four to five weeks. The AJ found

that complainant's upper gastro-intestinal bleeding was caused by the various painkillers that complainant wasusing at the time. The AJ concluded that the agency's failure to accommodate complainant immediately following

his doctor's diagnosis was a factor contributing to the bleeding. Finally, the AJ found that after complainant's

hospitalization in September 2000, the agency continued to fail to offer complainant a reasonable accommodation.

Therefore, the AJ awarded complainant $95,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages.

*3 In addition, the AJ instructed the agency to restore all sick leave used by complainant from September 25,

1999, to the present, and all annual leave used by complainant during the same time of period. The AJ also ordered

the agency to pay complainant back pay for all leave without pay used by complainant from September 25, 1999

to the date of the AJ's decision. Finally, the AJ ordered the agency to expunge from complainant's record all the

leave without pay.

The agency's final order rejected the AJ's decision. On appeal, the agency contends, among other things, that the AJ

erred in determining that complainant was a qualified individual with a disability. In particular, the agency found

that complainant cannot perform the duties of the CSBCS operator. The agency alleged that the essential functions

are moving and using his legs to move the bridge, which is not a possibility for complainant. The agency contends

that the duties of the CSBCS position are not within complainant's doctor's recommendation and there are no

other jobs within the facility that will accommodate his restrictions. The agency also contends that complainant's

position on the CSBCS required the operator to be in constant motion. The agency argues that having a chair in

the area would present a tripping hazard to others and the walk space was no more than 36 inches wide. As such,





the agency contends that the requested accommodation of a chair in the CSBCS workplace would pose a safety

hazard to both complainant and other postal employees working in that area.

The agency also argues that management made a good faith effort to accommodate complainant, and that

complainant is not entitled to receive compensatory damages. Specifically, the agency contends that P1 instructed

complainant that he could sit periodically by clocking off the machine operation and clocking on a function that

would allow him to sit. P1 testified that he did not receive any documentation from September 1999 to June

2000 from complainant. P1 also testified that he received a note dated June 22, 2000, that stated complainant

should sit periodically and take occasional breaks to walk, and documents dated September 13, 2000, September

28, 2000 and October 27, 2000. The agency alleged that based on these documents complainant was sitting the

majority of his work schedule. The agency contends that once P1 was provided with documentation he made an

effort to accommodate complainant. The agency contends that nothing in the record support the assertion that

P1 intentionally ignored complainant's medical documentation, and where there is no intentional discrimination,

complainant is not due compensatory damages. The agency further contends that complainant filed an Office of

Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) claim in relationship to his alleged condition and stated that it was

related to his employment. However, the OWCP determined that complainant had no condition that was related to

his employment. Therefore, the agency concluded that based on the above information from OWCP, because there

was no injury or exacerbation of complainant's condition from his employment, complainant was not entitled to

receive compensatory damages. The agency also alleged that complainant is not entitled to compensatory damagesbecause the agency did participate in the interactive process and made a good faith effort to provide complainant

reasonable accommodation.

*4 The agency further contends that no medical documents support a finding that his pre-existing condition was

worsened by decisions or actions of the agency. In fact, the agency concluded that complainant's blood clots were

attributed to the medication he was taking to treat the other medical conditions complainant suffered. The agency

alleged that from the time P1 removed the chairs from the CSBCS machine in September 1999 to September 2000,

complainant did not have an injury. The agency also alleged that the reported injury was the incident of internal

bleeding from taking Celebrex for other medical conditions. The agency concluded that complainant's condition

was exacerbated by complainant's own actions, and/or the medications he was taking for his medical conditions,

and that the injury was not related by the agency action of removing the chairs. Therefore, the agency concludedthat complainant is not entitled to $95,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages.

On appeal, complainant argues that the agency failed to timely and properly accommodate his disability.

Complainant contends that the agency's claim that it made a good faith effort is not supported by the record.

Specifically, complainant stated that he first requested an accommodation in August 1998, and used one

successfully until September of 1999, when the agency withdrew his accommodation. Complainant alleged that

the fact that he was required to stand at the machine for ten (10) months after the removal of the chairs, is clear

evidence of discriminatory intent. Complainant also contends that the agency misconstrues several facts in alleging

that work conditions and agency actions did not contribute to the disability. Complainant alleged that his other

medical conditions, Hepatitis C and gastro-intestinal bleeding, were affected by the medication taken to combat

the non-accommodated effects of the thrombophlebitis. Finally, complainant contends that the Celebrex was takenfor the thrombophlebitis, and therefore, the agency's actions are directly related to increased pain and suffering.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ 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 regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1951120165&pubNum=780&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_780_477&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_477


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.405&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4





a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint , 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are

subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

After a careful review of the record, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of discrimination. The AJ's

findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and the AJ correctly applied the appropriate regulations,

policies, and laws. As the AJ found, complainant was an individual with a disability, within the meaning of

the Rehabilitation Act. An individual with a disability is one who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or, (3) is regarded as

having such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(g). Upon the review of the record, complainant presented sufficient

evidence to establish that he was substantially limited in a major life activity. The medical evidence in the record

reveals that complainant's thrombophlebitis is a permanent impairment that substantially limits his ability to stand

without raising his legs to relieve swelling and pain.

*5 Complainant must next show that he is a “qualified individual with a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). A

“qualified individual with a disability” is an individual who satisfies the requisite skills, experience, education, and

other job-related requirements of the employment position and who, with or without accommodation, can perform

the essential functions of such position. For the reasons set forth by the AJ, we find that complainant is a qualified

individual with a disability. In this regard, the record reveals that complainant had been performing his duties

in a satisfactory manner with the accommodation of a chair. Specifically, the record reveals that complainantrequested an accommodation for his condition in August 1998, and used the chair successfully until September

1999, when P1 removed the chair.

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. Now that we have determined that

complainant is a qualified individual with disability, we turn to discussing whether or not the agency failed to

provide complainant reasonable accommodation when P1 removed the chairs from the CSBCS machine.

The agency alleged that the use of the chair at the machine constituted a safety hazard. Specifically, the

agency alleged that the workspace where the complainant would be working is very confined. P1 alleged thatcomplainant's position required constant movement of the CSBCS operators, and that having a chair in the area

would present a tripping hazard to others and the walk space was no more than 36 inches wide. As such, the

agency alleged that the requested accommodation of a chair in the CSBCS workplace would pose a threat to both

complainant and other postal employees. The record does not support the agency's contention. Specifically, we

find that the chair had been used since 1996, and there were no safety incidents at the machine area. We find

that the agency merely argues that the use of a chair can be a safety hazard, but, the agency offers no evidence to

support that contention and made no attempt to evaluate the risk of potential harm from the use of the chair.

The agency also alleged that the use of a chair at the machine is an undue hardship because it limits productivity.

Specifically, the agency alleged that the CSBCS machine processed more mail after the chairs were removed,

presumably because the chairs were removed. The agency alleged that after the chairs were removed, the volumeof mail processed by the machine increased eleven percent. We find that the removal of the chair was not the only

change that occurred during that year which affected processing on the CSBCS machines. The record reveals that

the agency had a new device that captured more mail to be processed by the machine. We find that the agency

failed to prove that the use of a chair at the machine area constitutes an undue hardship to the agency. Therefore,

we agree with the AJ that the agency discriminated against complainant based on his disability when management

denied him the reasonable accommodation of using a chair at his work-site.









*6 Finally, the record supports the AJ's finding that the agency did not make a good faith effort to provide

complainant with reasonable accommodation for his thrombophlebitis. Complainant's use of a chair was removed,

and the agency failed to provide complainant with duties consistent with his medical documentation. The record

reveals that in response to complainant's accommodation request, P1 offered him an unworkable option, which

required him to shut down his machine in order to raise his legs after moving to another part of the facility.

Complainant was also told that his other option would be to go on light duty without guaranteed work. We agree

with the AJ, that neither of the accommodations were effective. The Commission finds that this is not a case where

the agency made a “good faith effort” to accommodate complainant, and thus the agency is not insulated from an

obligation to award proper compensatory damages. See Teshima v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01961997 (May 5, 1998).

Pursuant to Section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a complainant who establishes his or her claim of

unlawful discrimination may receive, in addition to equitable remedies, compensatory damages for past and future

pecuniary losses (i.e., out of pocket expenses) and non-pecuniary losses (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish).

42 U.S. C. § 1981a(b)(3). For an employer with more than 500 employees, such as the agency, the limit of liability

for future pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is $300,000. Id.

Upon review, the Commission finds that the AJ properly determined that complainant established a nexus between

the alleged harm and discrimination. Therefore, we must review whether or not the amount of AJ's non-pecuniaryaward was appropriate. The AJ determined that the agency's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation

aggravated complainant's condition. The AJ found that complainant was living with severe pain and inflammation

in his lower legs when the agency ordered him to perform his duties without the aid of a chair. The AJ also found

that complainant's pain continued for approximately one year, when he remained in his bid position working on

the CSBCS without the use of a chair. Finally, the AJ noted that the agency's action aggravated complainant's

condition, because in an effort to remain standing without resting his legs, complainant began to rely heavily on

prescribed and over-the counter pain pills to get him through his shift. The record reveals through complainant's

physician's testimony that complainant's gastro-intestinal bleeding was caused by the various painkillers that

complainant was using at the time. Complainant's doctor also testified that the agency's failure to accommodate

complainant contributed to the exacerbation of complainant's suffering. We find that the agency argues that

management's action did not cause complainant's gastro-intestinal bleeding, and that complainant's injuries wereattributed to the medication he was taking to treat other medical conditions. However, we find that the record

did not reveal that complainant's other medical conditions caused the gastro-intestinal bleeding. The record

supports complainant's claim that his condition was exacerbated by the agency's failure to provide reasonable

accommodation.

*7 We conclude that the AJ's award of $95,000.00 is consistent with prior Commission precedent and takes

into account the severity and duration of the harm suffered. The record reveals that due to the agency's failure

to accommodate complainant, he was hospitalized and his condition was aggravated. The record also reveals

through complainant's family's testimonies that the agency's actions impacted complainant's overall quality of

life. See Brinkley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01953977 (January 23, 1998) ($110,000

in non-pecuniary damages for the injury sustained by complainant which resulted in her hospitalization, and thevarious symptoms she experienced included hopelessness, loss of energy, agoraphobia, loss of interest in living,

depressed mood, impaired memory and concentration, insomnia, agitation, and loss of interest in routine activities

and personal self care) Leatherman v. Department of the Interior , EEOC Appeal 01A12222 (December 14, 2001)

($100,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages as a result of the discriminatory action of the agency, complainant was

hospitalized twice). Therefore, we find that the AJ properly concluded that complainant is entitled to $95,000.00

in non-pecuniary compensatory damages.

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1981A&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_d801000002763

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1998484223&pubNum=4031&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=PD&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1998484223&pubNum=4031&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=PD&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)





Accordingly, the Commission reverses the agency's final order. The agency is direcetd to take corrective action

consistent with the ORDER below.

ORDER

To the extent that it has not already done so, the agency is ordered to take the following remedial action within

sixty calendar (60) days, unless otherwise specified, of the date this decision becomes final:

(1) within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall take all steps necessary

to ensure that complainant is provided with reasonable accommodation for his disability.

(2) the agency is directed to award complainant pecuniary damages in the amount of $688.58, and non-pecuniary

damages in the amount of $95,000.00;

(3) the agency shall determine the appropriate amount of backpay (with interest, if applicable) and other benefits

due for leave taken without pay, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.501, no later than ninety (90) calendar days after

the date this decision becomes final. 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 backpay and/or benefits, the agency shall issue a check to complainant forthe undisputed amount within ninety (90) calendar days of the date the agency determines the amount it believes to

be due. Complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification. A petition for enforcement must be filled with

the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's

Decision.”

*8 (4) the agency shall expunge all leave without pay from complainant's record and restore all sick leave and

annual leave used by complainant due to the agency's failure to accommodate him from September 1999 to the

date this decision becomes final;

(5) the agency shall provide training to all the management officials responsible for this matter in their duties and

obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.

(6) the agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against all the management officials responsible for this

matter. The agency shall report its decision. If the agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the

action taken. If the agency decided not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision

not to impose discipline.

POSTING ORDER (G0900)

The agency is ordered to post at its Meadville, Pennsylvania 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) consecutivedays, 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)

*9 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

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.604&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5




http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E-16&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E-16&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5



http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.503&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_16f4000091d86

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.503&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_16f4000091d86



http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.503&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.501&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.501&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.501&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_803d000060000





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:

*10 Stephen Llewellyn

Acting 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation

Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. has occurred at the Meadville, Pennsylvania Post Office (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 United States Postal Service supports and will comply with such federal law and will not take action against

individuals because they have exercised their rights under law.

The agency was found to have discriminated against an employee on the basis of his disability when it failed to

provide reasonable accommodation. The agency has been ordered to: (1) provide the employee with reasonable

accommodation; (2) award the employee back pay and other benefits due, restore all leave taken as a result of thedenial of accommodation; (3) pay proven compensatory damages and attorney's fees; (4) provide training in the

obligations and duties imposed by Rehabilitation Act; and (5) post this notice.

The facility 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.

29 C.F.R. Part 1614

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS791&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS794&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS794&originatingDoc=Iacc415a06efb11db8af7b21dc878c125&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5








EEOC DOC 07A20030 (E.E.O.C.), 2004 WL 1084818

End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

john de john complainant v john e potter postmaster general united states postal

Documents