01974105
10-14-1999
Cynthia L. Taylor, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cynthia L. Taylor v. United States Postal Service
01974105
October 14, 1999
Cynthia L. Taylor, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01974105
v. ) Agency No. 1-H-329-1061-96
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
)
DECISION
Appellant timely filed an appeal with the Commission from a final
decision of the agency concerning her complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted in accordance with
EEOC Order No. 960, as amended. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a).
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the agency retaliated
against appellant for previous EEO activity by dismissing her from a
leadership development program (LDP) on February 13, 1996. The agency
employed appellant as a maintenance operations supervisor at its
processing and distribution center for Mid-Florida. She was selected
into the LDP, and was notified of her selection by the LDP manager,
by letter dated November 17, 1995. Investigative Exhibit (IE) 5, p. 3.
The LDP was a selective program, in that those responsible for running the
program sought to admit candidates who exhibited the highest standards of
ethical and professional behavior. IE 2, p. 4; Investigative Affidavit
(IA) B, p. 2, 5; IA C, p. 3. On December 11, 1995, appellant was issued
a letter of warning for improper conduct. IE 7, p. 1. Specifically,
she was charged with violating the code of ethical conduct set forth
in section 661 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual, when she had
an electronics technician work on her personal computer, which she had
brought from home. The LDP manager testified that he became aware of the
letter of warning at a meeting with the plant manager in February of 1996,
and that a letter of warning for unethical conduct constituted sufficient
grounds for removal from the program. IA B, pp. 2-3; IE 9, p. 1.
To prevail on her reprisal claim, appellant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must initially establish a
prima facie of reprisal by showing: (1) that she engaged in protected
EEO activity; (2) that the agency was aware of that activity; and (3)
that she was subjected to an adverse action at such a time or in such
a manner as to support a causal connection between the two events.
Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940764 (December 15,
1994). 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). To ultimately prevail,
appellant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
agency's explanation is pretextual. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Appellant testified that she had filed an EEO complaint involving one
of the plant managers several years earlier. IA A, pp. 1-2. The LDP
manager testified that he was not involved in appellant's prior EEO
complaint. IA B. p. 4. He also testified that he did not become aware of
appellant's prior EEO activity until he had his discussion with the two
plant managers. He noted that the manager against whom appellant filed
her prior EEO complaint commented that the decision to drop appellant
from the LDP, "would result in a retaliation EEO complaint." IA B,
p. 3. The LDP manager's testimony establishes that he did not become
aware of appellant's prior EEO activity until after he made the decision
to terminate appellant's participation in the program. Appellant herself
admitted, that she could not determine precisely when the plant managers
first brought her prior complaint to the attention of the LDP manager.
IA A, p. 3. On the basis of this evidence, we find that appellant
failed to establish the necessary nexus between the LDP manager's
decision to drop her from the program and her prior complaint against
the plant manager.
Moreover, even if appellant did establish a prima facie case of reprisal,
the agency's articulated reason for dropping appellant from the LDP
program, that she received a letter of warning, is corroborated by
the letter itself and the LDP manager's testimony. Appellant has not
presented any documents or testimony, apart from her own assertions, which
contradicts the LDP manager's testimony or undermines his credibility
as a witness. We therefore find that appellant has not shown that this
reason is a pretext for reprisal.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision
because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that reprisal occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is
considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney
concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your
action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Oct. 14, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations