01a00816
04-25-2000
Sandra Williams, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W Areas), Agency.
Sandra Williams, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A00816
v. ) Agency No. 1G-772-0005-99
) Hearing No. 330-99-8246X
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 basis of sex (female), when, on September 12, 1998, she
was discharged from the agency for failure to attain a passing score
necessary to qualify for the Small Parcel and Bundle Sorter.
The record reveals that complainant, formerly a probationary Small Parcel
and Bundle Sorter Clerk, at the agency's North Houston Mail Facility,
Houston, Texas, filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on November
23, 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). The AJ issued a decision
without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of sex discrimination. In her complaint, complainant maintained that in
May 1997, a male comparative was issued a notice of removal for failure
to qualify, but he was later reinstated into the position, whereas she
was not. In her decision, the AJ found that complainant and the male
comparative were not similarly situated since the male comparative was
not a probationary employee. In light of this, the AJ noted that the
comparative had been entitled to union representation, which successfully
negotiated his reinstatement. In addition, the AJ found that other
male employees were removed for failing to qualify for their positions.
As such, the AJ determined that factors other than sex were the reasons
for the disparity in treatment between complainant and the named male
comparative employee. Specifically, the Plant Manager testified that
the named male comparative was reinstated due to a procedural defect in
the removal notice.
The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that complainant was
removed from her position in light of her failure to qualify for the job.
Additionally, 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.
The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant contends that the AJ erred when she issued a recommended
decision without a hearing. She also submits another letter of removal
issued to the male comparative employee in January 1997, which was not
contained in the investigative file. She claims the January 1997 removal
notice was not acted upon, whereas her notice of removal was implemented.
Complainant argues that males are given extra time to qualify for the
positions, but females are not.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary
Judgment is proper when �material facts are not in genuine dispute.� 64
Fed. Reg. 37, 644, 37, 657(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)). Only a dispute over facts that are truly
material to the outcome of the case should preclude summary judgment.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law, and not irrelevant or unnecessary disputes, will preclude the entry
of summary judgment). For example, when a complainant is unable to
set forth facts necessary to establish one essential element of a prima
facie case, a dispute over facts necessary to prove another element of
the case would not be material to the outcome. Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). EEOC MD-110, at 7-15 November 9, 1999.
The Commission will apply a de novo standard of review when it reviews
an AJ's decision to issue a decision without a hearing pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). See, EEOC MD-110, at 9-16.
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 sex. Despite complainant's
arguments to the contrary, we find the record reveals complainant was
afforded additional time to qualify for the position, but she failed to
ultimately qualify. We do not find complainant's submission on appeal
is evidence that would establish a genuine issue of material fact.
We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a
careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions on
appeal, the agency's response, 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:
April 25, 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.