01995760
02-02-2001
Sheryl J. Wilson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area Region), Agency.
Sheryl J. Wilson v. United States Postal Service
01995760
February 2, 2001
.
Sheryl J. Wilson,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Western Area Region),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01995760
Agency No. 4E-800-0206-98
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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.<1> Complainant alleged that she was discriminated
against on the basis of sex (female) when: (1) on March 27, 1998, she
was removed from an EAS-21 level position of Manager, Customer Service
at the Aurora Colorado Main Post Office (hereinafter Main Post Office)
and reassigned to an EAS-18 level position of Manager, Customer Service at
the Altura-Aurora Post Office (hereinafter Altura Station); and (2) a male
manager was assigned to the Altura Station and paid at the EAS-19 level.
For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's finding
of no discrimination.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Manager of Customer Service in the agency's district in
Aurora, Colorado which is comprised of six facilities, including the Main
Post Office and the Altura Station. Believing the agency discriminated
against her as referenced above, complainant sought EEO counseling and
subsequently filed a formal complaint on July 2, 1998. At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant was informed of her right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge but did not do so. The agency
issued a final decision from which the instant appeal was taken.<2>
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973) and
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-256
(1981), the Commission finds that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of sex discrimination regarding her reassignment from the Main
Post Office to the Altura Station. In reaching this conclusion, we note
that complainant was on a detail assignment to the Main Post Office where
her performance was rated as poor. Complainant contends that other poor
performing male managers were not reassigned. However, complainant was on
a detail assignment and the poor performing male managers she identified
were not. Thus, we find that complainant was not similarly situated to
the poor performing male managers who were not reassigned. Furthermore,
we note that the Officer in Charge met with complainant on March 17,
1998 to discuss her performance. At that meeting, complainant indicated
that she felt she should be placed back into her proper EAS-18 level
assignment and that she did not care where it was or when it happened.
Complainant's representative, who was present at the meeting, stated
that complainant verbally requested to return to the Altura Station.
Regarding the difference between the EAS level paid to the male manager
who worked at the Altura Station while complainant was on detail to the
Main Post Office, we again find that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of sex discrimination because this manager was paid
at the same EAS-18 level as complainant. Besides her bare assertion
that he was paid at the EAS-19 level, complainant offers no evidence in
support of her claim. We also note the agency's explanation that its
policy during this time was to pay an employee's normal level salary if
that employee was detailed to a lower paying assignment but to pay the
detail's salary if the detail's salary was higher than the employer's
normal salary, which would explain why complainant was paid as an EAS-21
while detailed to the Main Post Office.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we affirm the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
February 2, 2001
__________________
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 Because the final agency decision lacked the requisite legal analysis,
via interim decision dated November 1, 2000, the Commission ordered and
the agency thereafter completed a supplemental investigation.