01A34327
06-22-2004
Annie M. Lee, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Annie M. Lee v. United States Postal Service
01A34327
06-22-04
.
Annie M. Lee,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A34327
Agency No. 4G-770-0079-02
Hearing No. 330-A2-8227X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. , Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. , and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons,
the Commission affirms the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a City Carrier at the agency's
Martin Luther King Station, filed a formal EEO complaint on December
26, 2001, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her on
the bases of race (African-American), disability (anxiety), and age
(D.O.B. 09/28/56) when:
(1) On or about October 13, 2001, she was informed she would no longer
be on her route;
(2) On or about September 25, 2001 and October 23, 2001, respectively,
her manager refused to acknowledge and accept her doctor's forms;
(3) On October 19, 2001 and November 7, 2001, respectively, her leave
without pay was denied.
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 race or age discrimination because she failed to demonstrate
that similarly situated employees not in her protected classes were
treated differently under similar circumstances. The AJ further concluded
that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability
discrimination because she failed to provide evidence or testimony as
to what major life activity her impairment (anxiety) substantially limits.
Even assuming that complainant could establish a prima facie case of
discrimination, the AJ concluded that the agency articulated legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which were not persuasively
rebutted by complainant. With regard to claim (1), the AJ found that
complainant was temporarily removed from her route based on medical
restrictions and for customer service reasons. With regard to claim
(2), the AJ found that complainant had not submitted medical forms to
management for approval and acceptance. With regard to claim (3), the
AJ found that complainant never submitted a request for leave without
pay to management with required proof.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision, and this appeal
followed. On appeal, complainant contends that she was treated wrongly
by the agency and she requests compensation for pain and suffering.<1>
The agency requests that the Commission affirm the final agency decision.
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 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.
Assuming that complainant established a prima facie case of race, age and
disability<2> discrimination, the Commission finds that the AJ's decision
properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant failed to
present evidence from which discriminatory intent could be inferred,
and further, failed to present evidence to establish that the agency's
proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Although
complainant on appeal requests compensation for pain and suffering,
complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages where, as here,
there is a finding of no discrimination.
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 order.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
____06-22-04______________
Date
1 While complainant also contends on appeal that the agency failed
to comply with a National Agreement, this is not an issue before this
Commission and therefore will not be addressed in this Decision.
2 The Commission assumes, for the purpose of this analysis only, that
complainant is an individual with a disability.