01a52960
11-22-2005
Rose J. Robinson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rose J. Robinson v. United States Postal Service
01A52960
November 22, 2005
.
Rose J. Robinson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52960
Agency No. 1H-325-0004-04
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
concerning her 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.,
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Mail Processing Clerk at the agency's Miami Processing
and Distribution Center facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling
and subsequently filed a formal complaint dated September 29, 2004,
alleging that she was discriminated against on the bases of race
(African-American), national origin (American), color (black), disability
(stress), age (D.O.B. 06/12/54), and reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
on July 1, 2004, complainant was denied light-duty work.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its February 15, 2005 decision, the agency concluded that complainant
failed to prove discrimination. The agency stated that the sworn
statement of the management official of Distribution Operations, Person A,
stated that complainant was denied work based on her medical restrictions.
Additionally, the agency noted that the Light-Duty Approval/Assignment
Routing Form, dated June 29, 2004, indicates there were no light-duty
positions available within her limitations. The agency noted that the
form was signed by the Manager of Distribution Operations, the Manager
of Maintenance, the Manager of Transportation/Networks, and the Manager
of In-Plant Support. The agency found complainant did not show that
its articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action was
a pretextual mask for discriminatory motivation.
Upon review, we find that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions: there was no light duty
assignment available within complainant's medical limitations. We note
that complainant does not challenge the definition of her complaint on
appeal. Furthermore, upon review of complainant's affidavit, we find
that complainant's statement that she did not require an accommodation
indicates that complainant's complaint did not concern an alleged denial
of a reasonable accommodation. Complainant failed to present evidence
that any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes. Specifically, the Commission
concludes that even assuming arguendo, complainant did establish prima
facie cases of discrimination on the alleged bases, the preponderant
evidence does not show that discrimination occurred. Complainant presents
no evidence that she was treated less favorably than individuals similarly
situated. Other than mere assertions, complainant does not provide any
evidence that the agency's actions were based on any discriminatory
bases.<1>
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no discrimination
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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
November 22, 2005
__________________
Date
1We do not address in this decision whether
complainant is an individual with a disability.