01A33871
09-14-2004
Julie A. Ragsdale, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.
Julie A. Ragsdale v. United States Postal Service
01A33871
September 14, 2004
.
Julie A. Ragsdale,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A33871
Agency Nos. 4D-290-0056-00;
4D-290-0077-00;
4D-290-0010-01;
4D-290-0071-01
Hearing No. 140-A1-8123X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts the complainant's
appeal from the agency's final order in the above-entitled matter.
Complainant filed several complaints, which were subsequently
consolidated, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her on
the bases of race (Caucasian) and sex (female), in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq., on the basis of disability, in violation of Section 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and in reprisal for prior EEO activity [arising
under Title VII and Rehabilitation Act] when:
(1) she was subjected to harassment;<1>
complainant was denied details, assignments, and promotions;
complainant was involuntarily assigned to the Mauldin, South Carolina
Post Office as a Customer Service Supervisor;
on July 26, 2000, and ongoing, complainant was denied reasonable
accommodation;
on July 26, 2000, complainant submitted PS Form 3971 for administrative
leave and her request was denied;
on March 12, 2001, and ongoing, complainant learned that three supervisor
replacements were handpicked, and were all promoted; and
on March 5, 2001, complainant learned that another employee was
accommodated with relocation due to a hostile work environment.
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 on any basis, concerning the claims of disparate treatment,
harassment and denial of reasonable accommodation. The agency's final
order implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ's partial consolidation
of her hearing with that of another employee at the same location, was
prejudicial to her.<2> Complainant expresses numerous other concerns
about the AJ's conduct of the hearing, and disagrees with several of
the AJ's interpretations of the facts. Complainant also contends she
has been subjected to retaliation since the filing of her complaints.
The agency requests that we affirm its final order.
As to complainant's assertion that she has been subjected to additional
discriminatory actions, we note that the Commission's regulations allow
a complainant to amend a complaint at any time prior to the conclusion
of the investigation to include issues or claims like or related to
those raised in the complaint. Additionally, after requesting a hearing,
complainant may file a motion with the EEOC Administrative Judge to amend
a complaint to include issues or claims like or related to those raised
in the complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106(d). However, the regulations
do not permit a complainant to raise a new claim on appeal. Therefore,
even assuming arguendo that complainant's allegations are related to this
instant claim, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to address
the allegation on appeal. Singleton v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01984784 (April 13, 2001).
Addressing complainant's concern raised on appeal, we note that we
discern no basis upon which to conclude that the AJ's consolidation of
complainant's case with that of another individual at the same facility,
was prejudicial to complainant. We further discern no abuse of discretion
by the AJ. Administrative Judges have broad discretion in the conduct
of hearings. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e); Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO- MD-110) at 7-8 to
7-14 (revised November 9, 1999); Bennett v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05980746 (September 19, 2000).
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ 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 regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
Harassment
Based on the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
510 U.S. 17 (1993), in order to prevail on a claim of harassment,
complainant must prove that: (1) she was subjected to harassment that
was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions
of employment and create an abusive or hostile environment; and (2)
the harassment was based on her membership in a protected class.
See EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994), Enforcement Guidance on
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3, 6; Cobb v. Department of the
Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997). The evidence in
the record is insufficient to support a finding that management's actions
towards complainant were based on her membership in a protected group.
See EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994), Enforcement Guidance on
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3, 6.
Reasonable Accommodation
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant is an individual with a disability
pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, the finding that complainant was not
denied a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the Rehabilitation
Act, is supported by substantial evidence of record.
Disparate Treatment
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Again, assuming, arguendo, that complainant is an individual with a
disability pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, we find that the agency
has nevertheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
all of its actions. The AJ's finding that complainant has not shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that these articulated reasons were pretext
for discrimination, is supported by substantial evidence of record.
Accordingly, after a review of the record in its entirety, including
consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the final
agency order.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
September 14, 2004
__________________
Date
1 This alleged harassment included the following: denials of details,
promotions and assignments; the disclosure to the unions at Anderson that
the supervisors were being reassigned; the failure for a period of time,
of a manager to respond to complainant's letters alleging that he was
assigning her to a hostile work environment; complainant's receipt of
a letter advising her that her medical documentation was insufficient
to support her sick leave; and, the fact that complainant was sent to
a class entitled �Fundamentals of Supervision.�
2 The record indicates that complainant's hearing was partially
consolidated with the hearing of Adele Striss, Agency no. 4D-290-0063-01.
The Commission has previously issued a decision finding no discrimination
in 4D-290-0063-01. See Adele Striss v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A33479 (May 20, 2004).