01a41153
04-28-2005
Diane W. Parks, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Diane W. Parks v. United States Postal Service
01A41153
April 28, 2005
.
Diane W. Parks,<1>
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A41153
Agency No. 4H-350-0244-98
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint 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. , Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. ,
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405.
During the relevant time, complainant was employed as a Postmaster,
EAS-18, at the agency's Weaver Post Office in Weaver, Alabama.
Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on June 28, 1998, claiming that she was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Caucasian), national origin (English-American),
sex (female), disability (stress), age (D.O.B. 4/25/46), and in reprisal
for prior EEO activity when:
(1) on April 30, 1998, complainant's Manager called complainant at the
doctor's office and accused her of lying about her illness; and
(2) on May 6, 1998, complainant became aware that another clerk had
been assigned to her office during her absence, although complainant
was not given a clerk when she requested one.
In an August 10, 1998 FAD, the agency dismissed claims (1) and (2)
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal of claim (1).
The Commission reversed and remanded the agency's dismissal of claim (2)
after finding that complainant stated a claim of discrimination affecting
a term, condition or privilege of her employment. On remand, the agency
was specifically ordered to process the remanded claim in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. Wood v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01986067 (August 12, 1999); request to reconsider denied,
EEOC Request No. EEOC Request No. 05991068 (May 2, 2001).
At the conclusion of the investigation regarding claim (2), complainant
was informed of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by
the agency. By letter received by the AJ on August 7, 2002, complainant
withdrew her hearing request and requested that the agency issue a FAD.
The agency issued the instant FAD on October 31, 2003, finding no
discrimination. The agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of race, national origin, sex, or age discrimination.
Specifically, the agency found that complainant failed to demonstrate
that similarly situated employees not in complainant's protected classes
were treated differently under similar circumstances.
Regarding complainant's disability claim, the agency concluded that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability
discrimination noting that she did not present sufficient evidence that
she had a specific mental impairment which substantially limited one or
more major life activities within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act,
or that she had a record of or was regarded as having such an impairment
As a preliminary matter, the Commission presumes for purposes of analysis
only and without so finding that complainant is an individual with
a disability.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that
a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment
action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction
Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to
the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the
complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder
by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of
a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
(1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
The record contains evidence supporting a determination that the
agency articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
actions in regard to claim (2). The Manager, Post Office Operations
(Manager) stated in an affidavit that on April 21, 1998, she met with
complainant to discuss the results of a �Function Four� audit, which
showed that complainant's office required daily clerk hours of 10.63.
The Manager further stated that she advised complainant "to continue to
utilize RCA's [Rural Carrier Associates] and other employees to assist
with the work duties until another clerk could be hired." The Manager
stated that on May 4, 1998, complainant reported that she was taking a
medical leave of absence. The Manager further stated that a staffing
shortage was created due to the promotion of an employee in the office.
The Manager denied discriminating against complainant based on her race,
national origin, sex, disability, age or prior EEO activity. The Manager
stated that a clerk was hired "due to a function four audit not because of
retaliation for prior EEO activity." Furthermore, the Manager stated that
complainant was informed of the hiring of the clerk prior to May 6, 1998.
Complainant has not demonstrated that the agency's articulated reasons
for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
Accordingly, the agency's finding of no discrimination regarding claim
(2) was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
April 28, 2005
__________________
Date
1The record reveals that during the relevant period complainant changed
her name from �Diane P. Wood� to �Diane W. Parks.�