01993932
02-16-2000
Barbara A. Woods, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (N.E./N.Y. Metro Areas) Agency.
Barbara A. Woods v. United States Postal Service
01993932
February 16, 2000
.
Barbara A. Woods,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(N.E./N.Y. Metro Areas)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993932
Agency No. 1B-012-1029-94
Hearing No. 160-95-8510X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the bases of race (Black) and physical
disability (lower back sprain), in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when: (1) on June 17,
1994, she was subjected to rude remarks and unprofessionalism by a Human
Resource Specialist; and (2) on July 13, 1994, she was denied a Casual
City Carrier position. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC
Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the final agency decision.
The record reveals that complainant, believing she was a victim of
discrimination, sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal
complaint on October 21, 1994. 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 Findings and Conclusions, dated
March 16, 1999, in which the AJ found no discrimination. In finding no
discrimination, the AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to demonstrate
that similarly situated employees not in her protected class were treated
in a more favorable manner in selections for the position of Casual City
Carrier. The AJ noted that the testimony of the Station Manager of the
Main Street Station in 1994 revealed that complainant was not hired based
on her recent accident history and that other applicants had also been
denied the position for a similar reason. The AJ also found that the Human
Resource Specialist did not make rude remarks or act unprofessionally
toward complainant. Regarding complainant's allegation of disability
discrimination, the AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of disability discrimination, noting that complainant
failed to show that her back impairment qualified as a disability under
the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act or that she was regarded as having
a disability. On March 22, 1999, the agency adopted the Findings and
Conclusions of the AJ, whereupon complainant filed her appeal.
On appeal, complainant restates arguments previously made at the
hearing. She also contends that the AJ erred when he determined that there
was no prima facie case of race or disability discrimination because the
agency regarded her as a person with a disability and that only one of her
class was appointed to the position of Casual City Carrier in June 1994.
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 recommended decision summarized the relevant facts and
referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. Complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of either race or disability
discrimination. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. In this
regard, the AJ made specific credibility findings which are entitled
to deference due to the AJ's first-hand knowledge, through personal
observation, of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. See Esquer
v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960096 (September 6, 1996);
Willis v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05900589 (July 26,
1990). Even assuming that complainant had established an inference of
discrimination, the Commission finds that the agency has articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; namely that
complainant was not hired based on her recent accident history. In
addition, complainant has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions in this matter
lacked credibility and that its actions were more likely motivated
by discrimination. Accordingly, 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,
it is the decision of this Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision
which adopted the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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
February 16, 2000
__________________
Date
1On 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.