01986359
03-15-2000
Lauretta D. Warfield, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Lauretta D. Warfield v. United States Postal Service
01986359
March 15, 2000
Lauretta D. Warfield, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01986359
) Agency No. 4J-480-1070-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
On August 19, 1998, Lauretta D. Warfield (hereinafter referred to
as complainant) filed a timely appeal from the July 30, 1998, final
decision of the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred
to as the agency) concerning her 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 appeal is timely filed (see 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)))<1> and is accepted in accordance with
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (to be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
For the reasons that follow, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the complainant has proven,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency discriminated against
her on the bases of race (black), sex, and religion (unspecified) when
she was given instructions on March 11, 1996.
Complainant filed her formal complaint on October 21, 1996. She was
advised of her right to request a hearing or an immediate final agency
decision (FAD). She requested a FAD, and the agency issued a FAD,
finding no discrimination. Complainant has filed the instant appeal,
without argument.
Complainant worked as a Window Services Technician in Pontiac, Michigan.
A new supervisor (S1), who has since transferred, instituted new
procedures, including directing complainant to count certain monies and
lock them in a drawer, which she resisted. Complainant was issued a
letter of warning, later expunged. She contended that S1 spoke to her
in a rude manner, while S1 denied that he was rude.
In general, claims, such as the complainant's, alleging disparate
treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Initially,
for complainant to prevail, s/he must first 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; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). Following this established order of analysis is
not always necessary where the agency articulates an explanation for
its actions. In such cases, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to
the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis--the ultimate question of
whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's action was motivated by discrimination. United States Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983).
It is complainant's burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's action was based on prohibited considerations
of discrimination, that is, its articulated reason for its action
was not its true reason but a sham or pretext for discrimination.
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
We find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. S1's directions to complainant were in accord
with business operations with which she refused to comply. While the
evidence does not show that S1 spoke to her in an improper manner,
even if he did so, complainant has not shown that his action was based
on discriminatory factors or was a pretext for discrimination. We find
therefore that the agency did not discriminate against complainant.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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:
March 15, 2000
Date Carlton 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 of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
______________ _______________________
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.