01a02482
03-29-2001
Evola A. Coleman, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Evola A. Coleman v. United States Postal Service
01A02482
March 29, 2001
.
Evola A. Coleman,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02482
Agency No. 1H-351-0019-98
Hearing No. 130-99-8114X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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. 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.
Complainant alleges she was discriminated against on the bases of race
(Black), sex (female) and age (44 years old) when: (a) she was given
instructions by the Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO) to have the
mail count submitted by 8:00 a.m. and was accused of being insubordinate
when she responded to his question regarding the calculation of mail
volume; (b) on February 27, 1998, she was given a letter of concern by
the MDO; (c) on March 13, 1998, she was forced to initiate disciplinary
actions against employees when she already took steps to correct their
behavior; and (d) she was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) dated March 27,
1998, for failure to timely initiate the discipline to the employees.
For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final
order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Supervisor, Distribution Operation
(SDO) at the agency's Birmingham, Alabama facility, filed a formal EEO
complaint with the agency on May 26, 1998, alleging that the agency
had discriminated against her as referenced above. At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the investigative
report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant failed
to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not of her race, sex
or age were treated differently under similar circumstances.
The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ found that complainant
had a continual problem of getting mail counts in late to the MDO, and
that the unit complainant supervised had the worst attendance record
of all the units on that tour. The AJ noted that the MDO instructed
complainant on March 13, 1998, to complete proposals for disciplinary
action against some of her subordinates, and that she had not completed
the proposals by March 20, 1998. The AJ found justifiable the resulting
LOW, issued by the MDO to complainant for failure to follow instructions.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant makes
no new contentions on appeal.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant
failed to present evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated
by discriminatory animus toward her race, sex and age. We note memoranda
in the record from the Plant Manager to the MDO directing him to increase
productivity, and reduce tardiness and attendance problems, and memoranda
from the MDO to all of the SDOs concerning the same issues. We find that
the MDO had legitimate concerns with the productivity and attendance of
complainant's unit and that he took corrective actions against complainant
to improve that unit. We also note that the MDO issued disciplinary
action to other SDOs not of complainant's protected classes. We discern
no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. 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 agency's final order.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
March 29, 2001
__________________
Date