0120090137
01-30-2009
Cynthia J. Barton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cynthia J. Barton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090137
Agency No. 1H321000308
Hearing No. 510-2008-00201X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's September 5, 2008 final order concerning
her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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. Complainant alleged
that the agency subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases
of race (African-American), sex (female), color (black), and reprisal
(for prior protected EEO activity) when beginning on October 9, 2007,
she was assigned excessive supervisory responsibilities.
Following a hearing, the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) found no
discrimination. Although complainant and other witnesses described a
restructuring of supervisory duties in April 2007, the employment decision
which complainant objects to was not implemented until October of 2007.
At that time, it was proposed that complainant be given the assignments
previously held by a supervisor (T1S1) who was reassigned to a different
tour in June 2007. Within that same month, the newly assigned registered
room and express mail functions were taken away from complainant and given
to another supervisor (T1S2). This left complainant with an assignment
of 030 and the box section. The agency acknowledged that complainant
was assigned a larger number of employees than other supervisors on
tour one. However, agency officials testified that while complainant
may have additional time and attendance responsibilities regarding the
additional employees, she has fewer supervisory responsibilities because
manual processing is a slower-paced operation. Management officials
also generally believed that complainant could handle the assignment
because she is a very good supervisor and has good organizational skills.
In addition, all three management officials testified that numerous
operational changes were taking place at the time. For example,
new machines were being added and old ones were being taken away, two
supervisors were lost, an annex was closed, and automation processes had
been restructured. The AJ also provided a detailed explanation of her
credibility findings which concluded that the agency witnesses provided
consistent and credible testimony while complainant's testimony was
often evasive and inconsistent.
The AJ concluded that the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports
the finding that the responsible management officials were all trying
to deal with many changes taking place on an operational level, and also
trying to make the tour, and the processing of the mail, more efficient.
Moreover, the AJ concluded that the preponderance of the evidence shows
that complainant was assigned more work than other similarly situated
supervisors because she was more capable in performing such duties than
all other similarly situated supervisors on her tour. Lastly, the AJ
found insufficient evidence to support the finding that the agency's
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decision were
false or motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. We find that
the AJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
It is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court
that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court
also 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 with the Court 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 30, 2009
Date
5
0120090137
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
3
0120090137