05a31306
01-14-2004
Karen Wu, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Karen Wu v. United States Postal Service
05A31306
1/14/04
.
Karen Wu,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A31306
Appeal No. 01A33163
Agency No. 4B-030-0012-1
Hearing No. 160-A1-8636X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Karen Wu (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision
in Karen Wu v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A33163
(September 11, 2003). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the
requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (Asian), national origin
(Chinese), sex (female), and in retaliation for her association with an
individual who engaged in EEO activity when:
she was removed from her assignment as a CSBCS CFT Trainer; and
she was informed that she would not be receiving updated training for
her CSBCS CFT Trainer's certification.
Following an investigation, complainant requested and received a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a sixteen page
decision that found complainant had not been discriminated against.
Specifically, she concluded that complainant failed to allege a prima
facie case of discrimination because she failed to establish she suffered
an adverse action. She noted that complainant had been operating
as a CSBCS CFT Trainer while working in a detail on an "as needed"
basis in addition to her regular position. The AJ found no evidence
that complainant's training duties provided any career advancement.
Assuming complainant had established she suffered an adverse action,
the AJ found that complainant failed to present evidence of a similarly
situated individual who was treated more favorably than complainant.
Indeed, the individuals who worked as CSBCS CFT Trainers when complainant
was removed from the duties did so as part of their regular bid positions.
Furthermore, the parties stipulated that complainant did not apply for
the position which contained the CSBCS CFT Training functions.
With respect to her claim of retaliation, complainant alleged that she was
removed from her training duties in retaliation for her husband's MSPB and
EEO case. However, the AJ found credible that the individual responsible
for the removal of complainant's duties was not aware of complainant's
husband's EEO complaint. Rather, he testified he removed complainant
from performing the additional functions because the two individuals
who already worked as Operations Support Specialists had the training
duties as part of their job descriptions, and therefore, no additional
trainers were needed. Moreover, complainant's training certification
was not required once she ended her work as a CSBCS CFT Trainer.
In her Request, complainant states that the AJ failed to make any specific
credibility findings. Furthermore, complainant, through her attorney,
states that the prior decision did not contain sufficient analysis.
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request
fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. Complainant failed
to establish that the prior decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material law or fact. More specifically, complainant
failed to establish that the agency's reasons for its actions were a
pretext for discrimination. Complainant failed to present sufficient
evidence of a discriminatory or retaliatory bias held by those
management officials responsible for removing complainant's training
duties and certification. Furthermore, complainant failed to prove
the agency's reasons for its actions were not credible. Specifically,
we find insufficient evidence that the agency's CFT Training needs were
above that which was met through the two Operations Support Specialists.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A33163 remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the
decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
1/14/04
Date