01986511
03-16-2000
Carlotta L. Mauney, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Carlotta L. Mauney v. United States Postal Service
01986511
March 16, 2000
Carlotta L. Mauney, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986511
) Agency No. 4D-280-0117-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On August 26, 1998, Carlotta L. Mauney (the complainant) timely filed an
appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated July 30, 1998, concerning her
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et
seq.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly determined that
complainant had failed to prove that the agency discriminated against
her based on retaliation when she was issued a Notice of Removal.
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed by the agency as a Carrier Technician at
the Carmel Station of the Charlotte, North Carolina Post Office.
Complainant initiated EEO Counseling on February 21, 1997. She filed
a formal complaint on October 7, 1997, alleging discrimination on
the basis of retaliation when, on January 9, 1997, she was issued
a Notice of Removal for Failure to Maintain State Driver's License,
which was dated December 26, 1996, and effective on February 8, 1997.
The agency accepted the complaint for investigation and processing.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency issued a copy of its
investigative report and notified complainant of her right to request an
administrative hearing. After complainant failed to request a hearing,
the agency issued its FAD on July 30, 1998.
In its FAD, the agency found that the complainant had failed to establish
a prima facie case of retaliation because she was unable to demonstrate
that there was a nexus between her previous protected activity, which
occurred nine months earlier, and the agency's adverse action. It stated
that because the previous activity was nine months prior to her receiving
the Notice of Removal the existence of a nexus was precluded, and that
complainant's other EEO activity occurred after the Notice of Removal
had been issued. The FAD further stated that complainant had failed
to establish that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated
by the agency for its decision was a pretext for discrimination.
Complainant timely appeals, without comment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a
prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency
has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility
to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, a complainant must show
that: 1) s/he was engaged in protected activity; 2) the responsible
officials were aware of the protected activity; 3) the complainant
was subsequently subjected to adverse treatment; and 4) the adverse
action followed the protected activity within such a period of time
that retaliatory motivation may be inferred. Hochstadt v. Worcester
Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324
(D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976); Manoharan v. Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d
Cir. 1988); Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 500 (6th Cir. 1987); Frye
v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940764 (December 15, 1994).
We find that the agency improperly determined that complainant had not
shown a prima facie case of retaliation. Nine months in time is not
so far removed from the adverse action as to preclude the existence of
retaliatory motivation, especially given the fact that complainant had
previously claimed that her supervisor was sexually harassing her and
this same supervisor issued the Notice of Removal.
In response to complainant's claims of discrimination, the agency
presented evidence that complainant had actually failed to maintain her
North Carolina Driver's License in good standing and that this was a
requirement of her position, in order that she be able to deliver the
mail using a postal vehicle. Complainant's license had been suspended
since October 16, 1995, and she had not informed her supervisor of this
fact until early October 1996. After giving complainant approximately
two months in which to straighten out the status of her license and get
it reinstated, and assigning her to non-carrier duties in the meantime,
the agency issued the Notice of Removal. We find that the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.
Since the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate
that the agency's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
We find that complainant has failed to do so. Complainant admitted that
her license had been suspended. Therefore, the agency's determination
that complainant failed to establish that she was discriminated against
was correct.
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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:
March 16, 2000
______________ __________________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date
1 On 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.