Maureen Buzzell, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 3, 2000
01982791 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 3, 2000)

01982791

03-03-2000

Maureen Buzzell, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Maureen Buzzell v. United States Postal Service

01982791

March 3, 2000

Maureen Buzzell, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01982791

) Agency No. 4A-105-1058-96

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of

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.<1> The final agency decision was received by

complainant on February 12, 1998. The appeal was postmarked February

24, 1998. Accordingly, the appeal is timely (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999)(to be codified as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), and is accepted

in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

Complainant contacted an EEO counselor on February 2, 1996, regarding

claims of discrimination. Specifically, complainant alleged that she

was discriminated against when:

(1) In August and September 1995, she was required to adhere to

regulations regarding lunches;

(2) On September 26, 1995, she was required to reimburse the Postal

Service for her personal telephone calls;

(3) On October 3, 1995, open craft positions were sent to the general

clerk for posting instead of being given to a supervisor to post;

(4) On December 11, 1995, she was the only supervisor who had an

erratic schedule;

(5) On December 20, 1995, she was required to revise her schedule because

she was late for work, instead of being granted approved leave.

Informal efforts to resolve complainant's concerns were unsuccessful.

Accordingly, on May 6, 1996, complainant filed a formal complaint

alleging that she was the victim of unlawful employment discrimination

on the bases of sex (female) and color (white).

The agency accepted complainant's complaint for investigation. Following

the completion of the investigation, the agency informed complainant by

letter dated October 8, 1997, of her right to request a hearing before

an Administrative Judge. The record contains no evidence reflecting

that complainant requested a hearing.

In its February 11, 1998, final decision, the agency first dismissed

the complaint as moot, and then made an alternative finding on the

merits. Specifically, the agency determined that any effects of the

alleged discrimination had been eradicated because complainant had been

reassigned to another postal facility. The agency also determined that

complainant failed to provide any objective evidence to support her

claim for compensatory damages. In the alternative, the agency found

no discrimination. The agency found that complainant's complaint claims

failed to establish by preponderant evidence that the agency engaged in

unlawful employment discrimination based on sex and race.

In her statement on appeal, complainant addressed both the agency's

finding of mootness and its finding of no discrimination. Concerning the

agency's determination that her complaint was moot, complainant averred

that she had suffered severe emotional and physical damage as a result

of the discriminatory conduct of the agency. Complainant presented

objective evidence in the form of personal statements regarding her

physical condition and statements from her treating physician. Upon

review, we find that the documents presented by complainant constitute

objective evidence of compensatory damages sufficient to preclude the

agency's finding of mootness pursuant to Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,656 (1999)(to be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5)) provides for

the dismissal of a complaint when the issues raised therein are moot.

Because we find that complainant's complaint was not moot, the Commission

will consider the agency's finding of no discrimination.

Complainant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment,

and the agency properly analyzed it under the three-tiered analytical

framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 7,92

(1973). See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993);

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

Applying this legal standard to complainant's complaint, the Commission

finds that the agency successfully rebutted any initial inference of

discrimination raised by complainant by articulating a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the actions at issue. Specifically the

agency indicated that the lunch policy challenged in claim (1) of

complainant's complaint applied to all employees, including supervisors,

and including complainant.

Concerning claim (2), the agency stated that complainant was asked to

reimburse the agency for her personal phone calls because they were

excessive in nature. The agency maintains that complainant's telephone

use was abusive and that no other employee's use of the telephone equated

that of complainant's telephone usage.

In response to claim (3), the agency indicated that on the day in

question, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) wanted the vacancy announcement

posted by 9:00 a.m. The agency further indicated that because

complainant was not at work by that time, the OIC instructed a general

clerk to post the vacancy.

Concerning complainant's erratic work schedule, claim (4), the agency

indicated that the creation of a new Window Technician position

freed complainant from having to supervise the window clerks; and

that complainant's OIC indicated that she was attempting to provide

complainant with an opportunity to develop supervisory skills in delivery

and collection.

Finally, in response to claim (5) regarding complainant's revised schedule,

the agency maintains that the decision to revise complainant's schedule,

rather than grant approved leave, was discretionary in nature and was not

based on complainant's race or sex. Regarding this matter, the record

contains the affidavit of an agency supervisor. Therein, she indicated

that on December 20, 1995, she revised complainant's work schedule

when she reported late for work, purportedly due to snow; that she was

scheduled to report for work at 5:00 a.m. but did not do so until 9:30

a.m.; and that complainant's schedule was therefore revised in accordance

with provisions of the agency Handbook addressing time and attendance.<2>

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that

complainant failed to establish that the agency's reasons for its actions

were pretext for discrimination. We find that complainant's contentions

on appeal are without merit.

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing complainant's complaint

is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.

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

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 at 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 at 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 3, 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 Equal Employment Assistant

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.

2The supervisor indicated that the handbook dictates that "If the

employee's tour is extended solely because of tardiness, the employee is

not entitled to out-of-schedule overtime or Sunday premium which would

otherwise result because of the tour extension."