01986452
04-18-2000
Miriam B. Flowers, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Miriam B. Flowers v. United States Postal Service
01986452
April 18, 2000
Miriam B. Flowers, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986452
) Agency No. 4G-700-1227-95
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On August 28, 1998, Miriam B. Flowers (the complainant) timely filed an
appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
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, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The Commission
hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly determined that
complainant had failed to prove that the agency discriminated against
her based on race, sex and retaliation when she was not offered light
duty hours, and when she was denied "Go Back Time."
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed by the agency as a City Letter Carrier in
Marrero, Louisiana. Complainant initiated EEO Counseling on April
13, 1995. She filed a formal complaint on August 29, 1995, alleging
discrimination on the bases of race (white), sex (female) and reprisal
(prior EEO activity) when: 1) on March 14, 16, and 17, 1995, she was
not offered light duty hours, and 2) on March 24, 1995, she was denied
"Go Back Time."<2> The agency accepted the complaint for investigation
and processing. At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency
issued a copy of its investigative report and notified complainant of
her right to request an administrative hearing. After complainant asked
that the agency issue its final decision on the record, the agency issued
its FAD on July 20, 1998.
In its FAD, the agency found that the complainant had failed to establish
a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination because she was unable
to demonstrate that there were similarly situated employees of a different
race or sex who were treated more favorably than her. It also found that
complainant had not shown a prima facie case of reprisal because she
had not proven a causal connection between her EEO activity and being
denied light duty. The FAD further stated that complainant had failed
to establish that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons articulated
by the agency for its decisions were a pretext for discrimination.
Complainant appeals, without comment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a
prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency
has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility
to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the
third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of
whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In response to complainant's claims of discrimination, the agency noted
that complainant had never requested light duty for the dates in question,
nor were the necessary medical forms submitted in order to have light
duty approved. The record contains a note from complainant's doctor
noting that she could not wear her left shoe properly due to a blister,
and requesting other suitable work. According to the affidavit submitted
by the Supervisor, Customer Services ( MO-1), complainant was given
informal light duty assignments on those dates and took sick leave for the
amounts of time of each day where there was no light duty work to be done.
MO-1's affidavit stated that complainant worked approximately the same
amounts of time as another employee who was officially on light duty.
Regarding the "Go Back Time" issue, the MO-1 also noted in his affidavit
that the Marrero, Louisiana delivery unit does not have a "specific
same day request or �go back' procedure or policy" and that annual leave
requests are "approved/disapproved according to the National Agreement
and the LMOU [Local Memorandum of Understanding], neither of which have
provisions for such requests." Complainant's immediate supervisor on
March 24, 1995, (MO-2) stated in his affidavit that he never received any
request for "Go Back Time" from complainant on that date. The record does
not contain a copy of complainant's request for leave on March 24, 1995.
We find that the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions.
Since the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its action, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate that the
agency's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination. We find
that complainant has failed to do so. Complainant presented no arguments
or evidence designed to show that the agency's given reasons were pretext
for discrimination, beyond her assertions that the agency had engaged
in illegal discrimination. She claimed that there was a "Go Back Time"
policy at the facility but failed to offer any proof of its existence,
or of the manner in which it was to be applied to requests for leave.
She also did not show that she had requested it on the date in question.
Therefore, the agency's determination that complainant failed to establish
that she was discriminated against was correct.<3>
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
April 18, 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
1 On 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.
2 The Counselor's Report defined "Go Back Time" as "when the mail is light
and the carrier returns to the office early to case mail. He/she does not
return to the street but [is] granted leave for the duration of the day."
3 We find that the agency erred to the extent that it found that
complainant had not established a prima facie case of race or sex
discrimination because she was unable to demonstrate that she was treated
less favorably than any similarly situated employee. We note that to
establish a prima facie case, complainant must only present evidence
which, if unrebutted, would support an inference that the agency's
actions resulted from discrimination. Furnco, 438 U.S. at 576. It is not
necessary for the complainant to rely strictly on comparative evidence in
order to establish an inference of discriminatory motivation necessary to
support a prima facie case. O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.,
116 S.Ct. 1307 (1996); Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated
Coin Caterers Corp., EEOC Notice No. 915.002, n.4 (September 18, 1996);
Carson v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 82 F.3d 157 (7th Cir. 1996).