01a00038
09-14-2000
Patricia J. Coppage, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Patricia J. Coppage v. United States Postal Service (S.E./S.W. Region)
01A00038
September 14, 2000
.
Patricia J. Coppage,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(S.E./S.W. Region),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A00038
Agency No. 4-H-310-0132-97
Hearing No. 110-98-8292X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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.<1> The
appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges
she was discriminated against on the bases of race (White) and sex
(female)<2> when she received a Notice of Removal letter dated March 7,
1997, for exhibiting threatening behavior towards a Supervisor (S-1). For
the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Rural Carrier, PS-5, at the
agency's Valdosta, GA Main Post Office facility, filed a formal EEO
complaint with the agency on April 8, 1997, alleging that the agency
had discriminated against her as referenced above. At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a decision
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant established a prima facie case of
race and sex discrimination because three male employees who allegedly
had made similar threats were not terminated as complainant was. The
AJ concluded that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. S-1 testified that he felt threatened by
complainant's driving by him, pointing her index finger at him with her
thumb raised as if to form an imaginary pistol, and asking him where his
bodyguard was. Her actions were thus in violation of the agency's zero
tolerance in the workplace of threats and applied threats of violence,
and for that reason the Postmaster terminated her.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely
than not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask
unlawful discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ noted
that none of complainant's witnesses testified as to complainant's being
discriminated against because of her race or sex, and complainant herself,
when asked why she named race as a basis for discrimination, indicated
that she really didn't know. The agency's final order implemented the
AJ's decision. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal, and the
agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings
by an Administrative Judge 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 that discriminatory intent did not exist is a factual finding.
See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
In this regard, the AJ found that the record indicated, without rebuttal,
that half the employees hired by the Postmaster were female, that 25 of
those 30 were white females, that of two supervisors he promoted one was
female, and that of four employees he fired only one, the complainant,
was a female. Similarly, S-1 testified that of seven employees he was
involved in firing, complainant was the only female.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant
failed to present evidence that the agency's issuance of the Notice of
Removal was motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race
or sex. In this regard, complainant alleged that a male supervisor had
threatened a union steward with physical violence yet was not terminated,
and that S-1 himself had physically laid hands on a black male employee
and threatened him, yet also was not terminated. The Postmaster refuted
these allegations, however, pointing out that grievances filed by both
the union steward and the Black employee failed to mention any physical
threats or laying on of hands and an independent investigation of the
second incident also did not uncover any threats having being made.
Although the AJ did not find credible the assertion of S-1 and the
Postmaster that they took complainant's threat seriously enough to warrant
her removal, he also noted that this conclusion did not compel a finding
in complainant's favor, since she did not show by a preponderance of the
evidence that she was issued the Notice of Removal for discriminatory
reasons. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's
final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0800)
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).
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:
_____________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 14, 2000
__________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2 Prior to the hearing, complainant withdrew the purview of age
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.