01981861
03-03-2000
Elma Maduro, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Elma Maduro v. United States Postal Service
01981861
March 3, 2000
Elma Maduro, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01981861
v. ) Agency No. 4E-852-0054-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of race (Hispanic) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant
alleges that she was discriminated against when: (1) the agency
added collection duties to her route; and (2) the agency changed her
non-scheduled days. The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed
Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1641.405).
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
ISSUE
The issue presented is whether complainant has established, by
preponderant evidence, that the agency discriminated against her on the
basis of race.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a part-time flexible distribution clerk (PTF) at the agency's Casa
Grande, Arizona facility. Complainant alleged that the agency added
collection duties to her route after she filed a grievance on another
employment issue. Also, she alleged that the agency did not allow her to
take non-scheduled leave days (on November 22 and 23, 1996) and allowed
a less senior PTF carrier to have leave on those days.
Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought
EEO counseling, and subsequently, she filed a complaint on March 21,
1997. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that
the agency issue a final agency decision.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination because she presented no evidence that similarly
situated individuals not in her protected classes were treated differently
under similar circumstances. In addition, the FAD concluded that the
agency proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency failed to consider a
number of her arguments. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003
(1st Cir. 1979); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292
(5th Cir. 1981), 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's FAD.
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
In this case, the Commission finds that the agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically,
the agency stated that complainant received collection duties in order
to give her enough work for an eight-hour shift. Also, the agency stated
that complainant was not given November 22 and 23, 1996 as non-scheduled
leave days because other carriers had pre-approved annual leave time
during November 17 and 23, 1996. As a result, all other carriers were
needed to work. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the official
job description of a PTF carrier includes doing collections on letter
routes and from boxes and racks when necessary. These duties can be added
to a carrier's route to make it an eight hour shift. Also, we note that
PTF carriers are not entitled to certain days off of work, especially
during times when the agency has a need for part-time carriers to work.
Because the agency has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the alleged discriminatory event, complainant now bears the burden
of establishing that the agency's stated reasons are merely a pretext
for discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration, EEOC
Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this
by showing that the agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason.
Id. (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
The complainant argues that the other carrier (White male) was not
assigned collection duties. However, she acknowledges that the route
was short and that the other carrier was assigned express duties to make
the route an eight hour shift. Also, she argues that the other carrier
(White male) was given certain (weekend) days off work although she had
requested them. Yet complainant admits that neither she nor other PTF
carriers were entitled to specific days off work. Without showing a
discriminatory animus, we find that complainant has failed to meet her
burden on either claim. Complainant has not presented any evidence that
the agency was motivated by a discriminatory intent.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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:
03/03/00
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 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.