01973785
03-07-2000
Jeri Ygnatowiz, Complainant, Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Jeri Ygnatowiz v. Department of Agriculture
01973785
March 7, 2000
Jeri Ygnatowiz, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01973785
) Agency No. 950130
)
Daniel R. Glickman, )
Secretary, )
Department of Agriculture, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of age (DOB: 11/22/42), in violation of Title VII of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
621 et seq.<1> Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when
she was placed on AWOL status despite submission of her leave request.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37, 659
(1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a computer assistant, at the agency's Butte Ranger District facility.
Complainant alleged discrimination as referenced above when the agency
required detailed medical information to justify her request for extended
sick leave. Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant
sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on November 2,
1994. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that
the agency issue a FAD.
The agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of age discrimination because she presented no evidence
that similarly situated individuals, not in her protected class, were
treated differently under similar circumstances. On appeal, complainant
contends that the agency failed to consider a number of her arguments.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant established that she
was discriminated against when her third level supervisor (RMO: DOB:
10/6/54) refused to accept her medical documentation for sick leave
purposes and placed her on AWOL status.<2>
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging
discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973). See Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979) (applying McDonnell Douglas to age cases). First, complainant
must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting
facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of
discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in
the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next,
the agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s)
for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency is successful, then the complainant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate reason
proffered by the agency was a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.
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 she 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).
Since the record shows that complainant belongs to a statutorily
protected class, employees over 40 years of age, and since the agency
has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,
the Commission here considers whether complainant demonstrated by
a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its
actions are merely a pretext for discrimination. The agency contends
that complainant was charged AWOL from September 26, 1994 until October
11, 1994 because she failed to provide detailed medical information to
substantiate her sick leave request.
Complainant maintains that she was treated differently when her
application for sick leave was denied because it lacked detail. However,
complainant failed to make a comparison with a similarly situated
co-worker and fails to rebut the agency's contentions that her request
for sick leave was vague and generalized. The agency contends that
it required more specific information from the complainant because she
was requesting extended leave (approximately three months) and because
she used excessive sick leave in the past. RMO, by her letter of
September 8, 1994, set out the agency's expectations for an acceptable
leave request. We note that the RMO gave the complainant two weeks sick
leave from, September 8, 1994 until September 16, 1994, in which to
provide Management with more detailed medical information. The request
for more detailed medical information was not isolated to complainant.
The record indicates that the agency requested similar information from
other employees. Complainant fails to establish any evidence of age
discrimination when the agency requested detailed information in order
to process her leave request.
Complainant also alleges that she was discriminated against when RMO
refused to convert her leave from AWOL to sick leave. Complainant
indicates that agency management converted the leave of two coworkers from
AWOL to sick leave.<3> These comparisons fail to provide any indication
of discriminatory motivation. While the agency did originally deny
complainant conversion to sick leave status, the agency subsequently
offered to convert the leave in settlement of complainant's EEO claim.
Upon our review of the record, the agency treated complainant and her
comparison coworkers identically. According to the record, complainant's
coworkers were initially placed on AWOL, their leave was converted only
in settlement of their administrative complaints. We further note that
complainant rejected the agency's offer to convert her leave, while
her colleagues accepted the offer. Moreover, complainant has failed to
establish that she was treated differently because of her age when the
agency initially refused to convert her AWOL status to sick leave.
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:
3/7/2000
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:
______________________ ____________________________
Equal Employment Assistant Date
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 The Commission notes that complainant does not allege discrimination
on the basis of disability.
3According to the record the coworkers were 52 and 35 years old.