Rosalind House, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Areas), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 22, 2000
01a00511 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 22, 2000)

01a00511

03-22-2000

Rosalind House, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Areas), Agency.


Rosalind House, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01A00511

v. ) Agency No. 4G-760-0061-98

) Hearing No. 310-98-5416X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(S.E./S.W. Areas), )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 appeal is

accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges she was discriminated

against on the bases of race (African-American) and color (black), when,

on November 4, 1997, her duty hours were changed. For the following

reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.

The record reveals that complainant, a Bulk Mail Entry Technician at the

agency's Fort Worth, Texas facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with

the agency on February 2, 1998, alleging that the agency had discriminated

against her as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation,

complainant received a copy of the investigative report and 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 color discrimination because the similarly situated employee,

not in her protected class, did not have her duty hours changed.

The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ found that

complainant's duty hours were changed in order to cover later-arriving

mail, which had caused the agency to incur overtime costs. Complainant's

hours were changed because she was the most junior person, with the

exception of the comparison employee (White), who did not have her duty

hours changed. The agency explained that the comparison employee did not

have her duty hours changed because she was away on a detail at the time,

and was not expected back until at least the following month.

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 found that although

complainant argued that the comparison employee could have been brought

back to the facility from the detail, complainant failed to provide

sufficient evidence that this was ever done, as she claimed it had been.

In sum, the AJ found complainant failed to present sufficient evidence

that would prove the agency's reasons for its actions were pretext for

discrimination.

On September 23, 1999, the agency issued a final decision that adopted

the AJ's RD. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal, and the

agency requests that we affirm its final decision.

Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at

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).

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 any of the agency's actions were motivated

by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race or color. We discern

no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful review

of the record, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in

this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.

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).

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 22, 2000

Date

Carlton

M.

Hadden,

Acting

Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.