LABOR RELATIONS

Comer Cash

EEO DECISIONS

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that a dyslexic and functionally illiterate postal worker has failed to prove that he was fired because of his disability rather than his shoddy safety record. His claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was thus rejected.

The Court held that the Postal Service showed that legitimate safety concerns justified the termination of the appellant and that he (the Appellant) failed to carry his burden of introducing evidence that the safety reasons given for his dismissal was pretextual.

The appellant had previously had four (4) work-related injuries during his course of employment with the Postal Service. The precipitating act that led to his termination, was the appellant’s climbing of a multi-slide machine to dislodge some mail. The Postal Service alleged that climbing the slide was dangerous and prohibited, but appellant claimed it was common practice, encouraged by management.

The lower Court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the appellant was not a "handicapped individual" within the means of the Rehabilitation Act. The Sixth Circuit Court disagreed with the lower Court’s reasoning, but upheld the ruling.

DECISION TWO

The appellant was a casual, nonpermanent postal employee before he was fired. He wanted to become a permanent employee. Under Postal regulations, he had to pass a test with an oral section and three written sections. The appellant requested a reader for the written sections of the exam. When he was not given one, he filed an EEO complaint. After going through part of the administrative process, the appellant entered into a settlement with the agency that provided that the Postal Service would allow him to take the next scheduled exam. However, the agreement did not state that the exam would be given orally or the he would be assisted by a reader.

When the appellant took the test again, he requested a reader. The request was denied by the National Test Administration Center, which found that the exam did not test reading ability, but visual ability, an essential element of the mail-handler position. The appellant went ahead and took the test without a reader and failed.

During the same time period, according to the court, the appellant sought to be hired under the Postal Service’s severely disabled program, which would have circumvented the need to take a test. The state in which the appellant resided. Department of Human Services had certified him as a severely disabled individual, but the Postal Service questioned this finding, and never submitted requires to hire the appellant through the program.

The court said that to prevail on his Rehabilitation Act claim, the appellant had to establish (1) that he was a "handicap person" under the act; (2) that he was otherwise qualified; (3) that he was excluded solely by reason of his handicap; and (4) that the relevant program was receiving federal funds.

The Sixth Circuit found it unnecessary to address the first two prones of proof, finding that the appellant failed to prove he was fired solely for his dyslexia and that the Postal Service’s stated reason for his firing was pretextual.

The court stated "even assuming that climbing the slide was encouraged by postal management, the appellants work accidents serve as a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for the business decision of the United States Postal Service to terminate him."

The appellant did not deny that he had any work accidents. He never denied that his safety record was the actual reason for his discharge, or claim that his safety record was an insufficient reason for a discharge. Thus, there was not enough evidence to find a factual dispute as to whether the Postal Service’s safety concerns were pretextual. (Cooper v. Runyan, 6th Cir. 11-25-98)