Carolynv.Johnson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 31, 2000
01983264 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2000)

01983264

03-31-2000

Carolyn V. Johnson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.


Carolyn V. Johnson v. United States Postal Service

01983264

March 31, 2000

Carolyn V. Johnson, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01983264

v. ) Agency No. 1K-211-0085-97

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a FAD concerning her complaint

of unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of race (Black), color

(Black), sex (female), reprisal (prior EEO activity), mental disability

(unspecified) and physical disability (temporamandibular joint disorder),

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,<1> as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<2> Complainant alleges she was discriminated

against on the above-stated bases when, on December 23, 1996, she was

yelled at, threatened and given a discussion regarding excessive talking

to a co-worker. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order

No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed

as a PS-06 Maintenance Support Clerk at the agency's Main Post Office

(facility) in Baltimore, Maryland. Complainant alleged that on the date

in question, the facility's Manager of Maintenance Operations Support

(Black male) yelled at her in a belligerent tone, informed her that she

would not be allowed to talk to a co-worker and gave her a disciplinary

discussion, while no other employees were treated in this manner.

Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on April 1, 1997.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the

agency issue a FAD.

The FAD found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of race, color or sex discrimination because she presented no evidence

that similarly situated individuals not in her protected classes were

treated differently under similar circumstances. The FAD also found

that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal

discrimination as although she had prior EEO activity, she failed to

show any nexus existed between her protected activity and the incident

in question. Finally, the FAD found that complainant failed to establish

a prima facie case of physical or mental disability discrimination,

as she did not establish that her impairments substantially limited

any major life activities. The FAD further found that complainant

failed to demonstrate evidence of a nexus between any impairment she may

have had and the alleged acts of discrimination. As a result, the FAD

found that complainant failed to establish discrimination on any of the

alleged bases. Neither complainant nor the agency have made contentions

on appeal.

After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation

for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd

545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation

cases), the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed to

establish a prima facie case of race, color or sex discrimination because

she failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in her

protected classes were treated differently under similar circumstances,

or that other evidence existed, which if otherwise unexplained, would

permit an inference of discrimination. We further agree with the FAD

that complainant failed to establish the requisite nexus between the

alleged act of discrimination and her prior EEO activity and thus she

failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal. Hochstadt, supra.

Finally, the Commission finds that assuming, arguendo, that complainant's

impairments were substantially limiting and that she was a qualified

individual with a disability, she failed to establish a prima facie case

of disability discrimination as there were no similarly situated employees

not in her protected classes who were treated differently under similar

circumstances. See 29 C.F.R � 1630.2(g)(1)-(3); EEOC Enforcement Guidance

on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities,

No. 915.002 (March 25, 1997); Visage v. Dept. of the Air Force, EEOC

Request No. 05940993 (July 10, 1995). Therefore, after a careful review

of the record, including arguments and evidence not specifically addressed

in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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 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 31, 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 after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_____________

Date

__________________________

Equal Employment Assistant

1 The 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.

Since that time, the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630

apply to complaints of disability discrimination. These regulations

can be found on the EEOC's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 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.