Gail S. Hughlette, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W Areas), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 8, 2000
01a00078 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 8, 2000)

01a00078

08-08-2000

Gail S. Hughlette, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W Areas), Agency.


Gail S. Hughlette v. United States Postal Service

01A00078

August 8, 2000

Gail S. Hughlette, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01A00078

v. ) Agency No. 4G-780-0213-97

) Hearing No. 360-98-8590X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(S.E./S.W Areas), )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final

decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint

of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., and the Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted

pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges she was discriminated against

on the bases of race (Caucasian), color (white), sex (female), age (44),

and physical disability (degenerative cervical osteoarthritis/cervical

disc herniation), when, on April 14, 1997, she was instructed to case

route 3839X instead of her hold-down route 3834X.<2> For the following

reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS The agency's final decision.

The record reveals that complainant, a City Carrier, at the agency's

San Antonio, Texas facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with the

agency on August 19, 1997, 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). Following a hearing,

the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.

Sometime in July 1995, the agency's Area Director assigned complainant

to the Leon Valley Station and granted her a �hold down� on route 3834X.

In November or December 1995, complainant suffered an injury. When there

was no light duty work available at her facility, she was assigned light

duty at the Medical Center Station from December 1995 until September

1996. Between September 1996 and December 1996, complainant cased route

3834X back at the Leon Valley Station. Thereafter, she was assigned to

another station.

On April 17, 1997, complainant was instructed to report back to the Leon

Valley Station for a special project. Complainant alleged that on that

day, the agency discriminated against her when the Manager of Customer

Services assigned complainant to sweep route 3839. Complainant testified

that since she was assigned a �hold down� on route 3834X, she should be

assigned to sweep route 3834X. Complainant testified that the Manager

of Customer Services told her that since she could not perform 100%

of her duties, the hold down was void. When complainant threatened

to file a union grievance over the matter, she alleged that Manager

of Customer Services threatened to write her up because she failed to

update her medical records.

The AJ found that complainant established a prima facie case of race,

color and sex discrimination. The AJ also found complainant established

that she was a disabled individual since her medical restrictions

substantially limited her ability to lift, walk and work. The AJ

concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of

age discrimination.

The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Supervisor of Customer

Services testified that on April 14, 1997, he assigned complainant,

who had arrived earlier than expected, to case route 3839 for two hours

until the special project began. He testified that since complainant had

been away from Leon Valley for several months, another individual had

been casing route 3834X. The Supervisor also testified that the route

had changed since her departure, and that complainant was not familiar

with the changes. He denied telling complainant that complainant could

not perform the hold down route because she could not perform 100%

of her duties. He also testified, however, that complainant's hold

down route was removed once she could not perform all the duties of the

Letter Carrier. The AJ also noted in her decision that the Supervisor

disagreed with the Area Director's decision to assign complainant to

the hold down route, as he believed it violated the union contract.

The Supervisor of Customer Services also did not believe complainant was

entitled to the hold down route, and that the arrangement violated the

union contract. He also testified that when complainant arrived at the

Leon Valley Station on April 14, 1997, the schedule was already made up,

and thus, complainant was assigned route 3839 for two to three hours.

The Supervisor of Customer Services admitted telling complainant that

he would write her up once he found out about her union grievance, but

denied this was retaliatory. He explained that he told complainant this

information in an effort to expedite her updated medical information.

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. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found

that the crux of the matter revolved over the difference of opinion

held by the Manager and Supervisor of Customer Services regarding

the Area Director's assignment of the hold down route. Under the

circumstances, the AJ found that the agency made the decision to assign

complainant to a different route based on legitimate business reasons,

and not discrimination. The AJ found that the issues in the instant

case were about the interpretation of the union contract, as opposed

to discriminatory motives. The AJ was not persuaded that complainant

alleged a denial of reasonable accommodation, rather, that complainant

took issue with her two to three hour assignment on a single day.

In sum, the AJ found complainant was not discriminated against,

as alleged. On September 2, 1999, the agency issued a final decision

adopting the AJ's RD.

On appeal, complainant restates arguments previously made at the hearing.

Complainant argues that her disability was the real reason her hold

down route was taken away on April 14, 1997. In response, the agency

restates the position it took in its FAD, and requests that we affirm

its final decision.

Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at

29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)), all post-hearing factual findings by an

Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence

in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.�

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,

477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding that discriminatory intent

did not exist is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).

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 sufficient persuasive evidence that any of the agency's

actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's

race, color, sex, age or disability. 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 decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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 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:

August 8, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.

2 A hold down route is a temporary assignment to a vacant position.