01994619
08-10-2001
Letitia C. Harris, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Letitia C. Harris v. United States Postal Service
01994619
8/10/01
.
Letitia C. Harris,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01994619
Agency No. 4H-300-0026-98
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her 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 alleged that she was discriminated against
on the basis of sex (female - sexual harassment), when on September 5,
1997, she learned she would no longer be used as an Ad-Hoc Window Trainer.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Window Clerk at the agency's Riverdale, Georgia facility. Believing
she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling
and subsequently filed a formal complaint on December 2, 1997. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of her right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively,
to receive a final decision by the agency. Complainant requested that
the agency issue a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of sexual harassment because she failed to introduce
any evidence of offensive sexual remarks or conduct by the Postmaster.
Rather, the agency found that the Postmaster (male) initially
recommended complainant for the Ad-Hoc Window Trainer. However,
after the Supervisor, Customer Services (female) informed him that she
recommended that complainant not be selected for the trainer position,
complainant was replaced. The record contains a Letter of Warning issued
to complainant by the Supervisor, Customer Services dated September 16,
1997, for Unsatisfactory Performance and Failure to Follow Instructions.
On appeal, complainant contends that the record was not properly
developed. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
In order to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment, the
complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence
of five elements: (1) that she is a member a statutorily protected class;
(2) that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her sex;
(3) that the harassment complained of was based on her sex; (4) that
the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive work environment; and (5) that there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 987,
903 (11th Cir. 1982). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the
objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.
Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice
No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
After a careful review of the record, we find complainant presented no
evidence that would establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment.
Complainant presented no evidence of unwelcome conduct or comments
because of her sex. As such, we will examine complainant's claim as
a claim of disparate treatment. Applying the standards set forth in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission
agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of sex discrimination because she failed to establish an inference
of discrimination. The record revealed that although complainant was
initially selected for the Ad Hoc Window Trainer, she was replaced by
a female.
The Commission further finds that complainant failed to present evidence
that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its
actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching this conclusion,
we note that the Postmaster removed complainant's name from a list of
candidates based on the advice of the Supervisor of Customer Services,
who experienced �problems� with complainant. The evidence of record
revealed that the Supervisor issued complainant a Letter of Warning at the
time in question. Complainant presented insufficient evidence that would
establish the agency's reason for its actions was unworthy of credence.
Further, she presented no evidence of a discriminatory motive because
of her sex on the part of the Postmaster or Supervisor.
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 (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
8/10/01
Date