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.