0120090543
06-03-2010
Margaret L. Jones, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.
Margaret L. Jones,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090543
Hearing No. 470-2007-00211X
Agency No. 4-C-400-0041-07
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that, during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Human Resource Specialist in the Kentuckiana District
Office in Louisville, Kentucky. Believing that she was victim of
discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed
a formal complaint.
Complainant alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment
on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (female) when:
1. Beginning from January 26, 2006, complainant was continuously assigned
more work than her peers.
2. On January 26, 2007, complainant received a 7.3 rating on her year
end performance evaluation.
3. On February 1, 2007, complainant was subjected to verbal abuse and
pre-disciplinary decisions.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of
the investigative report. Additionally, the agency informed complainant
of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ), or alternatively, to receive a final decision from the agency.
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
Following a hearing, the AJ issued a decision on October 24, 2008,
finding that complainant had not been discriminated. Specifically,
the AJ found that the agency presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions, which complainant failed to rebut.
On October 31, 2008, the agency, fully implementing the AJ's decision,
issued a decision finding no discrimination. Thereafter, complainant
filed the instant 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). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
Upon review, we find that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding claim 1, the Human
Resources Generalist (HRG), stated that, shortly after complainant agreed
to assume additional assignments, the Louisville District lost several
Human Resource (HR) Specialists. The HRG asserted that, as a result,
complainant was directed to take more assignments. The HRG claimed
that complainant was assigned three employees to assist her in the
performance of the extra duties. The HRG said that these assignments
were only temporary. The HRG articulated that, as soon as complainant
complained of being over worked, all the HR Specialists were cross-trained
in all personnel functions. The HRG stated that, at the conclusion of
the training, the agency began making assignments on a rotational basis.
As to claim 2, we agree with the AJ that complainant has not shown that
she deserved a hire rating or that others of a different race or sex
were treated differently. With respect to claim 3, the HRG asserted
that complainant was issued a pre-disciplinary discussion because she
had 5 unscheduled (sick leave) absences. Furthermore, the HRG asserted
that she had received several complaints concerning complainant's work
related misconduct such as being rude to postmasters and not returning
telephone calls. The HRG stated that complainant was not disciplined
for the above alleged misconduct.
As to the claim of harassment, the AJ found that complainant had not shown
that the incidents she complained of in her complaint were sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of complainant's employment.
Furthermore, the AJ found that complainant failed to show that any of
the harassing incidents were motivated by race or sex.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to rebut the agency's
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Additionally, the Commission finds that complainant has failed to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to discrimination
on the bases of race or sex. Moreover, complainant has failed to show
that the alleged harassing incidents, when considered together, constitute
a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court
that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court
also 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 with the Court 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
June 3, 2010
__________________
Date
2
0120090543
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013