Sonja J. Hrobowski, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 30, 2000
01986015 (E.E.O.C. May. 30, 2000)

01986015

05-30-2000

Sonja J. Hrobowski, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Sonja J. Hrobowski v. United States Postal Service

01986015

May 30, 2000

Sonja J. Hrobowski, )

Complainant, )

)

) Appeal No. 01986015

) Agency No. 4J-600-0319-97

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

Sonja J. Hrobowdki (complainant) timely initiated an appeal to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from the final decision of the

agency concerning complainant's claims that the agency violated Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,

and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

791 et seq. The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>

The issue on appeal is whether the agency discriminated against

complainant on the bases of disability (stress/depression) and reprisal

(prior EEO activity) when she did not receive a response to a July 15,

1997 request for medical information.

During the relevant time period, complainant worked for the agency as

a mailhandler. On July 15, 1997, she requested various medical records

from the agency's Occupational Health Nurse Administrator and from an

Injury Compensation Specialist (the Specialist) in the agency's Office

of Injury Compensation. Complainant requested that the Specialist send

her a full copy of a letter (apparently to the agency) regarding her

requests for injury compensation ; complainant stated that she had

previously received, along with other medical files, only the first

page of this letter. By letter to the agency's Resources Manager,

dated August 1, 1997, complainant claimed that she was harassed and

treated differently from other mail handlers because she had received

no response to her July 15, 1997 request for medical records. In this

letter, complainant named several mail handlers who had been treated

more favorably when they requested information about training status,

attendance records, and medical records.

Complainant requested EEO counseling on August 11, 1997 and filed a

formal EEO complaint on September 29, 1997. Thereafter, complainant

requested a final agency decision (FAD) without a hearing. The FAD was

issued and found no discrimination. Complainant now appeals the FAD.

Complainant states, on appeal, that her appeal is limited to the

Specialist's claimed failure to respond to her July 15, 1997 letter.

Complainant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment

and the agency properly analyzed it under the three-tiered analytical

framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993);

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.248, 253-256 (1981);

Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 622 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981);

Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425

F.Supp. 318, aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st. Cir. 1976). See also McKenna

v. Weinburger, 729 F.2d 783, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1984) and Burrus v. United

Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982).

Assuming, arguendo, that complainant established a prima facie case of

discrimination based on disability and reprisal discrimination, we find

that the agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations

which complainant failed to prove were pretextual. The Specialist

stated that she did not provide the requested information because she was

informed by her superior that the requested information was confidential.

Complainant submitted no evidence to rebut this explanation. Moreover,

while the Specialist may have been remiss in offering no response at

all to complainant's request, there is simply no evidence that this

was related to complainant's claimed disability or prior EEO activity.

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the entire record, including

complainant's statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Commission

to affirm the agency's decision that complainant was not discriminated

against as alleged.

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:

05-30-00

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 of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________________ ___________________________

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing 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.