01981531
06-18-2001
Lenette Charleston, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Lenette Charleston v. Department of Justice
01981531
June 18, 2001
.
Lenette Charleston,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01981531
Agency No. P-95-8760
Hearing No. 240-96-5108X
DECISION
Lenette Charleston (complainant) timely initiated an appeal from a
final decision (FAD) concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Complainant alleges she was discriminated against on the bases of her race
(Black), reprisal and sex (Female)<1> when:
her supervisor failed to inform her of a training course;
she received an �exceeds� performance appraisal in April, 1995;
she was counseled regarding her tardiness from lunch;
she was counseled regarding her performance elements and she received
unsatisfactory log entries;
she was denied annual leave; and
she has been placed on a performance improvement plan.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
decision.
The records reveals that complainant, a GS-9, Budget Analyst at the
Federal Correction Institute in Manchester, Kentucky, filed a formal
EEO complaint with the agency on August 24, 1995, alleging that the
agency had discriminated against her as referenced above. Following
an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ conducted a hearing and issued a
decision finding no discrimination. The agency issued a final agency
decision adopting the AJ's decision and complainant has filed this appeal.
The AJ concluded that it was unnecessary to determine whether or not
complainant established a prima facie case, when, as in the instant
case, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
the various challenged employment actions. Specifically, the AJ found
in regard to claim (1) that complainant's second level supervisor (S2)
issued a memorandum requesting that complainant attend a training class
regarding written and oral communications. S2 did not notify complainant
of the course in advance because such training had previously been
noted on complainant's need assessment and performance entry.
Also, the AJ found that S2 rated complainant's performance in April,
1995, because complainant's immediate supervisor had not been there
long enough to evaluate the complainant's performance. The AJ found
that S2 rated complainant as �exceeds� which was a higher performance
rating than the complainant had received the previous year.
The AJ noted that complainant's first line supervisor (S1) since February
1995, counseled complainant for being late from lunch because she
observed a trend of tardiness from complainant. The AJ further found that
S1 gave the complainant unsatisfactory performance log entries because
a budget meeting had to be rescheduled because complainant's budget work
was not completed on time and some of the budget work which was completed
was not accurate. As consequence of these unsatisfactory performance
log entries, S1 placed complainant on a performance improvement plan.
The AJ found that complainant's request for annual leave on June 29-30,
1995 was initially denied because those dates would have been the
only dates that complainant would have been back in the office after
almost a three week absence. The leave in question was subsequently
granted. The AJ also held that the testimony proffered by the agency
regarding the various challenged employment actions was both persuasive
and credible. The AJ further concluded that, even assuming that the
complainant established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination,
the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the
challenged employment action and the complainant failed to carry her
ultimate evidentiary burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence
that the challenged actions were motivated by unlawful considerations
of the complainant's race.
Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that
complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's race. In so finding, we note that complainant has
presented absolutely no evidence which would show any connection between
her race and the agency's challenged actions. For example, complainant
did not present any evidence that the white employees received a different
performance appraisal, she recognized that most people in the office
received �exceeds ratings.� Complainant' failed to establish that the
agency's reasons for their actions are a pretext for discrimination.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the
agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
June 18, 2001
Date
1Complainant in her formal complaint included retaliation and sex,
but the review of the record reveals that during the complaint process
complainant identified her claim as on of race discrimination only.