Marie C. Grier, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 7, 2000
01986577 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 7, 2000)

01986577

03-07-2000

Marie C. Grier, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Marie C. Grier v. United States Postal Service

01986577

March 7, 2000

Marie C. Grier, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01986577

v. ) Agency No. 1D-281-0086-97

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and religion (Christian)

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> For the reasons stated herein, the agency's

FAD is affirmed.

According to the record, complainant was a Mail-handler Relief Driver

at a North Carolina facility of the agency. Believing she was a victim

of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently,

filed a complaint alleging that the agency discriminated against her

when the Acting Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO) clocked her

out from duty prior to her normal end of duty time.<2>

The MDO stated that he "clocked out" complainant because she was

insubordinate when he asked her why she was pulling mail one container

at a time rather than the required three containers at a time and then

directed her to pull the mail correctly. The MDO further indicated that

race, sex, nor religion were factors in his action.

Complainant stated that the MDO's action was discriminatory because she

was the only African American who was ordered to pull the mail correctly

because the other African Americans did so through their own initiative;

because the MDO spoke to her in a manner different from the way he would

speak to a male in the same scenario; and because the MDO, in acting as

he did, knowingly went against her religious values. Complainant added

that several coworkers witnessed a male Mail-handler pulling mail one

container at a time on the same shift and day as complainant, however,

he was not "clocked out" by the MDO.

At the conclusion of the complaint's investigation, the agency notified

complainant of her right to a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge

or an immediate FAD without a hearing. Complainant did not indicate

a preference so the agency issued a FAD, which found no discrimination

based on race, sex, or religion. This appeal followed.

When a complainant relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an

agency's discriminatory intent or motive, there is a three step,

burden-shifting process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). The initial burden is on the complainant to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. The burden then shifts to

the agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its challenged action. Id. If the agency is successful, the complainant

must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency is merely pretext

for its discrimination. Id. at 804.

Because the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its action, we may proceed directly to determining whether complainant

satisfied her burden for showing pretext. Haas v. Department of Commerce,

EEOC Request No. 05970837 (July 7, 1999)(citing U.S. Postal Service

Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983)). Complainant may do this

in one of two ways, either directly, by showing that a discriminatory

reason more likely motivated the agency, or indirectly, by showing that

the agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Texas Dep't

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Essentially,

the fact finder must be persuaded by the complainant that the agency's

articulated reason was false and that its real reason was discrimination.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).

Complainant did not establish that similarly-situated employees outside of

her protected classes were treated more favorably in like circumstances

or that an inference of discrimination could be drawn from the evidence.

Behar v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940787 (June 2, 1995);

O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996).

In addition, complainant's mere assertions are insufficient to establish

pretext.

The Commission 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. 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 agency's finding of no discrimination based on

race, sex, or religion.

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 7, 2000

____________________________

Date Carlton M. 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.

2Complainant indicated three issues on her formal complaint dated October

21, 1997. The agency dismissed two issues in a partial decision dated

April 23, 1998. The issue addressed herein is the only one that was

accepted for investigation.