01983967
02-02-2000
Rosemary Hatter, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Rosemary Hatter v. United States Postal Service
01983967
February 2, 2000
Rosemary Hatter, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01983967
v. ) Agency No. 1G-7531090-96
) Hearing No. 310-97-5384X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
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.; and � 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the bases of
race (Black), sex (female), and physical disability (cervical strain;
disk problem; pinched nerve) when, in April 1996, the agency temporarily
determined that she was not entitled to Limited Duty status.<2> The
Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, we affirm the FAD.
The record reveals that, at the time of the alleged discriminatory event,
complainant was a Full Time Regular employee assigned as a Flat Sorter
Machine Operator at the agency's Processing and Distribution Center
(PDC) in Dallas, Texas. However, complainant did not actually work as
a Flat Sorter Machine Operator at the PDC. Rather, she held a Limited
Duty assignment at the agency's Air Mail Center (AMC), a facility
which was located closer to her residence.<3> In February 1996, the
agency opened a new facility, the International Service Center (ISC),
to process international and military mail. The agency transferred AMC
employees who held bid jobs in international and military mail to the ISC.
Concurrently, the agency's Injury Compensation Office was reviewing the
files of employees who held Limited Duty assignments to determine if they
were still so entitled. The Injury Compensation Office initially advised
a Manager at the AMC that complainant's was only entitled to Light Duty
status; but after further review, determined that complainant was still
entitled to Limited Duty status. In May 1996, complainant was told that
she had to report to work at the PDC where she was assigned to an area
for employees with Limited or Light Duty status. Believing she was being
discriminated against as referenced above, complainant filed a formal
EEO complaint on June 17, 1996. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD)
finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that complainant established a prima facie case of race,
sex and disability discrimination when the agency initially denied her
Limited Duty status. The AJ further found that the agency articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, namely that
the agency made a mistake in regard to her status which it corrected
approximately two weeks later. The AJ concluded that complainant
failed to prove that the agency's explanation was a pretext for unlawful
discrimination.<4> The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD. On appeal,
complainant contends that the AJ was deceived by the agency and erred
in disallowing a number of complainant's witnesses.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We remind complainant that an AJ
has broad discretion in the conduct of a hearing. 64 Fed. Reg 37,644,
37,657 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �
1614.109(e)); see also Malley v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal
No. 01951503 (May 22, 1997). We note that complainant failed to present
evidence that the agency's action was motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's race, sex or disability. Moreover, we find that
complainant failed to prove that she was harmed by the agency's temporary
mis-classification of her disability status either while she was assigned
to the AMC or upon her transfer to the PDC.<5> Accordingly, we discern
no basis to disturb the AJ's findings of no discrimination which are
supported by substantial evidence in the record. 64 Fed. Reg 37644,
37659, (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)). Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
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
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). 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:
February 2, 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 after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________
Date
________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
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 Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website: WWW.EEOC.GOV.
3 Complainant was granted Limited Duty status after an on-the-job injury
to her shoulder in June 1992. Generally, the agency grants Limited Duty
for injuries incurred on-the-job and Light Duty for injuries incurred
elsewhere.
4 Although not formally accepted for investigation by the agency,
the AJ discerned that complainant believed she was also discriminated
against when she was not transferred to the ISC. The AJ determined that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on
this issue since she was not similarly situated to any of the transferees
since they held bid positions.
5 The AJ noted that upon her transfer to the PDC, complainant was assigned
work which her supervisor believed met her restrictions. Complainant
alleges that she was forced to work outside of her medical restrictions.
However, complainant testified that she never brought this to anyone's
attention. The AJ correctly noted that under the Rehabilitation Act,
complainant has an obligation to inform her supervisor if her assignment
exceeds her medical restrictions.