Cora Page, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Midwest Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 18, 2000
01990685 (E.E.O.C. May. 18, 2000)

01990685

05-18-2000

Cora Page, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Midwest Region), Agency.


Cora Page v. United States Postal Service

01990685

May 18, 2000

.

Cora Page,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Great Lakes/Midwest Region),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01990685

Agency No. 4-J-493-0023-98

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (Black) and sex (female), in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>

Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when she was not

utilized as a 204-B Supervisor in the same way (number of hours/tours)

as were comparative supervisors between July 16, 1997, and November 7,

1997. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659

(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following reasons,

the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a PS-05 Distribution Window and Markup Clerk, at the agency's

Jackson, Michigan Post Office ("facility"). Complainant alleged that an

EEO Settlement signed by herself and agency management stated that upon

her return to work from surgery, she would be given a 204-B Supervisory

position on Tour 1.<2> However, when complainant returned to work on

July 16, 1997, she was utilized as a 204-B Supervisor on the evening

shift for about four weeks and on nights for about eight weeks, and

after serving at least one month on Tour 1, she was sent back to work

in her Clerk position while three White males retained their supervisory

positions. Complainant was thereafter terminated from the 204-B program

on November 7, 1997. Believing she was a victim of discrimination,

complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint

on December 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant

failed to request a hearing and thus the agency issued a FAD.

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

race and sex discrimination. However, the FAD further found that, assuming

complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the

agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the conduct

alleged as discriminatory by complainant. In so finding, the FAD noted:

(1) the testimony of the facility Postmaster that other 204-B Supervisors

have been used on more than one tour, and that complainant was returned

to her Clerk position due to her performance and uncooperative attitude;

(2) the testimony of the facility Supervisor, Customer Services (SCS),

who was complainant's immediate supervisor in the 204-B program, that when

complainant returned to work, he did not have a fourth 204-B Supervisor

position open on Tour 1 and thus had to use her on an as needed basis;

the three comparison employees were experienced supervisors who were

filling in for other supervisors on detail; and that complainant was

initially given less hours on Tour 1 as she had to be trained; and (3)

the SCS's testimony that complainant was returned to her Clerk craft

based on her conduct detailed in memos dated July 18, 1997 and November 8,

1997. Specifically, the memos noted that complainant created a disturbance

on the workroom floor, did not show up for work as a 204-B Supervisor

on October 25-26, 1997 and changed her schedule so she would not have

to work on November 1-2, 1997. The FAD further found that complainant

failed to demonstrate that the agency's articulated reasons were more

likely than not a pretext for discrimination. Complainant appeals,

while the agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

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

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission finds that the

FAD failed to provide an adequate explanation for its finding that

complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race or sex

discrimination. Nevertheless, we find that even assuming, arguendo,

that complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination,

the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its

actions. In so finding, the Commission notes that a review of the record

corroborates the testimony of the SCS that complainant was initially was

used as a 204-B Supervisor on as "as needed" basis (evenings and nights)

as there were no vacant 204-B positions on Tour 1 upon her return to

work, and that she was not given as many hours on Tour 1 in July and

August of 1997 as were the three

other 204-B Supervisors as she required supervisory training and the

comparatives did not. In addition, a review of the record demonstrates

that complainant was returned to her Clerk craft due to her conduct

while working as a 204-B and her subsequent attendance problems. Finally,

we find that complainant failed to demonstrate that the agency's reasons

were pretextual in nature. Therefore, after a careful review of the record

and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,

and for the reasons noted herein, 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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 [PAGE 4] 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

May 18, 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.

2We note that management agreed to the settlement "with the

understanding that [complainant's] improved attendance performance

continues." Investigative Report, Exhibit 3.