01997071_01997124
01-12-2001
Carmen M. Reagan, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Carmen M. Reagan v. United States Postal Service
01997071; 01997124; 01A00627
January 12, 2001
.
Carmen M. Reagan,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 01997071; 01997124; 01A00627
Agency Nos. 1-H-336-0012-98; 1-H-336-0089-98; 1-H-336-0118-98
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated appeals from three separate final agency
decisions (FADs) concerning her complaints 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., filed on February
2, 1998, May 8, 1998, and July 10, 1998. <1> The appeals are accepted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, and are hereby consolidated.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Distribution Clerk at the agency's Processing and
Distribution Center in Tampa, Florida. Believing she was a victim
of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a series of formal complaints, including the three here at issue.
At the conclusion of the agency investigations of each of these three
complaints, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ), but subsequently withdrew her requests. On June 30, 1999, the
AJ remanded all three complaints to the agency for issuance of FADs.
In agency complaint no. 1-H-336-0012-98 (appeal no. 01997071), complainant
alleged that she was discriminated against based on race (Caucasian),
sex (female), and national origin (Hispanic/Puerto Rican) when: (1)
on September 11, 1997, she became ill due to her supervisor's (S1's)
harassment; and (2) on September 26, 1997, she received a letter
of warning. In its August 25, 1999 FAD (FAD #1), the agency found
that assuming arguendo complainant established a prima facie case
of discrimination on these claims, she had failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that S1's proffered legitimate reasons
for the challenged actions were a pretext for discriminatory motive.
In agency complaint no. 1-H-336-0089-98 (appeal no. 01997124), complainant
alleged that she was retaliated against for prior EEO activity (counselor
contact and filing formal complaints) when, on January 13, 1998, she was
required to provide additional medical documentation. In its August 27,
1999 FAD (FAD #2), the agency found that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of retaliation because she did not demonstrate the
requisite nexus between her prior protected activity and the agency
nurse's request for the referenced medical documentation. Specifically,
the agency found that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that S1 had a role in prompting the agency's nurse's
request for additional documentation, or that the nurse was aware of
complainant's prior EEO activity.
In agency complaint no. 1-H-336-0118-98 (appeal no. 01A00627),
complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on sex
(female) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, from March 28,
1998, through June 19, 1998, her request for leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) were denied. In its October 1, 1999 FAD (FAD
#3), the agency found that each of complainant's leave requests except
one were approved during the referenced time period, but were approved as
annual leave rather than the FMLA leave complainant had sought. FAD #3
further found that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the handling of her leave requests was motivated
by her alleged refusal to engage in a personal relationship with S1,
or in reprisal for her prior EEO activity. The FAD further found that
viewing the claim in the alternative as one of harassment rather than
disparate treatment, the actions at issue were not sufficiently severe
or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.
On appeal, complainant contends that other similarly situated employees
outside her protected classes were treated more favorably with respect to
the terms and conditions of employment at issue. She further contends
that S1's actions challenged in the instant complaint are part of a
continuing pattern of harassment which should be analyzed as a whole
rather than fragmented into individual incidents. The agency requests
that we affirm its FADs.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973) and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222
(1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the
Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed to meet her
burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
S1's proffered reasons for the challenged actions were a pretext for
discrimination on any alleged basis. In reaching this conclusion, we
agree with complainant that the incidents at issue should be analyzed
as an alleged pattern of harassment, but even so analyzed, we conclude
that complainant has not satisfied her burden to prove discriminatory
or retaliatory motive.
We note that we do not reach the issue of whether or not the requirement
that complainant provide supplemental medical documentation, addressed
in FAD #2, violated Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., inasmuch as
complainant did not bring her claims under that statute. Nevertheless,
the agency should ensure that S1 and other managerial-level employees are
aware of applicable guidance regarding requests for medical information
from employees. See, e.g., EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related
Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (July 27, 2000) at questions 15-17 (regarding requests
for medical documentation from employees who have returned from leave);<2>
EEOC Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures To
Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation (October 20, 2000).
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 FADs.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
January 12, 2001
__________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment.