01995331_r
10-22-2001
Barbara Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Barbara Williams v. United States Postal Service
01995331
October 22, 2001
.
Barbara Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01995331
Agency No. 1D-280-1008-95
Hearing No. 140-97-8305X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges she was discriminated against
on the basis of race (Caucasian) when:
On September 27, 1994, she was not permitted to trade positions with
another flat sorter clerk.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
decision.
The record reveals that complainant, a Flat Sorter Machine Operator,
PS-5, at the Charlotte, North Carolina Processing & Distribution Center,
filed a formal complaint with the agency on December 23, 1994, alleging
that the agency had discriminated against her as referenced above.
On January 30, 1995, the complainant's formal complaint was dismissed
by the agency for failure to state a claim and complainant filed an
appeal from the dismissal. On appeal, the Commission reversed the
agency dismissal and remanded the complaint to the agency for further
processing. Williams v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01952616 (October 15, 1996).
Following an investigation, complainant was provided a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). In accordance with EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109,
the AJ issued a recommended decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to prove
that her circumstances were similar to comparators. The AJ found that
complainant failed to establish that comparators were supervised by
complainant's supervisor or that they were similarly situated in their
positions with the agency. The AJ determined that complainant is a
flat sorter, and that the named comparators are distribution clerks who
were assigned to the flat sorting machine, and are not flat sorters.
The AJ further determined that neither comparator traded positions,
and that a party other than complainant's supervisor assigned them from
their normal duties to the flat sorting machine.
The AJ then concluded that even assuming that the complainant had
established a prima facie case, the agency articulated legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the AJ found
that the agency indicated that management has discretion to direct
employees in the performance of official duties; to maintain the
efficiency of the operations; and to determine the methods, means and
personnel by which such operations are to be conducted. In addition,
the AJ noted that complainant's supervisor stated that he only allowed
employees to trade places if someone went home ill, or in an emergency;
and that neither circumstance was present in complainant's case. The AJ
concluded also that complainant failed to establish that more likely than
not, the reasons provided by the agency were a pretext for discrimination.
On May 18, 1999, the agency issued a final decision concurring with the
AJ's conclusions and found no discrimination.
The Commission determines that the AJ's recommended decision, accepted
by the agency in its final decision, properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies and laws.
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 (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
October 22, 2001
__________________
Date