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.