01a00257
02-03-2000
Gwendolyn Jackson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes/Mid West Areas), Agency.
Gwendolyn Jackson v. United States Postal Service
01A00257
February 3, 2000
.
Gwendolyn Jackson,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes/Mid West Areas),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A00257
Agency No. 4I-680-1062-95
Hearing No. 320-96-8107X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the bases of race (African-American),
color (Black), and sex (female) in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when on January 17,
1995, she was terminated from employment with the agency for failure
to meet the requirements of the position. The appeal is accepted in
accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that complainant, a probationary Window Clerk, at
the agency's Omaha Post Office, Papillion, Nebraska facility, filed a
formal EEO complaint with the agency on March 20, 1995, alleging that
the agency had discriminated against her as referenced above.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Concluding there were no
material facts in dispute, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination. Specifically, the AJ concluded that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases
because she failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees
not in her protected classes were treated more favorably under similar
circumstances. Although complainant cited other comparative employee
who she alleged were not terminated and had similar or worse attendance
records, the AJ found complainant failed to rebut the supervisor's
testimony that he did not know the individuals cited by complainant.
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant established an inference of
discrimination, the AJ found that the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Namely, the AJ found that the
agency discharged complainant due to the three absences she incurred
during the beginning of her probationary period. The AJ also found
that complainant failed to establish that this reason was a pretext
for discrimination. Although the AJ noted the termination may have been
unduly harsh, there was no evidence that the agency's action was based
on a discriminatory animus towards any of complainant's protected bases.
On August 26, 1999, the agency issued a final decision that concurred
with the AJ's decision. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal,
and the agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary
Judgement is proper when "material facts are not in genuine dispute." 29
C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). Only a dispute over facts that are truly material
to the outcome of the case should preclude summary judgement. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,
and not irrelevant or unnecessary disputes, will preclude the entry of
summary judgement). For example, when a complainant is unable to set forth
facts necessary to establish one essential element of a prima facie case,
a dispute over facts necessary to prove another element of the case would
not be material to the outcome. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986). EEOC MD-110, at 7-15 November 9, 1999. The Commission will apply
a de novo standard of review when it review's an AJ's decision to issue
a decision without a hearing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). See,
EEOC MD-110, at 9-16.
As the complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment, the AJ
properly analyzed it under the three-tiered analytical framework outlined
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See also
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). Applying this legal
standard to the complaint, the Commission finds that complainant failed to
establish an inference of discrimination in that she failed to establish
that individuals outside of her protected class were not terminated,
despite their having attendance records similar to complainant's.
We also agree with the AJ that assuming complainant did establish an
inference of discrimination, she failed to establish that the agency's
reason for its action was a pretext for discrimination. Complainant failed
to produce any evidence that she received harsher treatment because
of a protected bases. Therefore, after a careful review of the record,
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we affirm the agency's final decision.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 3, 2000
__________________
Date
1On 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.