01A23843_r
10-18-2002
Tiffany J. Pitts, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tiffany J. Pitts v. United States Postal Service
01A23843
October 18, 2002
.
Tiffany J. Pitts,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23843
Agency No. 1-G-708-0016-98
Hearing No. 270-99-9170X
DECISION
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in which she claimed that the
agency discriminated against her on the basis of her race (Black) when
on December 15, 1997, she was terminated during her probationary period.
The record reveals that complainant began working for the agency
on October 11, 1997, as a Part Time Flexible, Flat Sorter Machine
Operator, GS-5. Complainant received a 30-day evaluation on November
10, 1997, wherein she was rated unsatisfactory with regard to the factor
of dependability. On December 10, 1997, complainant received her 60-day
evaluation, wherein she was marked unsatisfactory on the factors of work
quality and dependability. Complainant was subsequently terminated from
her position.
The formal EEO complaint was accepted for investigation. Subsequent to
the completion of the agency investigation, complainant requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The hearing was held
and afterwards the AJ issued a bench decision dated June 25, 2002,
finding that complainant had not been discriminated against on the
basis of her race. The AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for complainant's termination. The AJ noted
that the agency stated that complainant was terminated due to her poor
attendance and inability to get along with others. The AJ observed
that complainant used 32.5 hours of unscheduled sick leave whereas
the comparison employee cited by complainant utilized eight hours of
unscheduled sick leave. With regard to complainant's interaction with
others, the AJ found that complainant was defensive, insubordinate,
and confrontational with coworkers and supervisors. The AJ further
found that complainant failed to establish that the comparative's work
behavior was similar to her work behavior. Complainant filed an appeal
with the Commission on July 3, 2002. The agency issued a final action
dated July 26, 2002, stating that it was implementing the AJ's decision.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission agrees with the agency that
complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination. Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056
(May 31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the
complainant has established a prima facie case to whether she has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons
for its actions merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
714-717 (1983). In this case, the Commission finds that the agency
has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action.
Consequently, we will dispense with an examination of whether complainant
established a prima facie case with respect to the above cited issues
and review below, the reasons articulated by the agency for its actions
as well as complainant's effort to prove pretext.
We find that the arguments presented by complainant do not establish,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's stated reasons for
its action were pretextual. With regard to complainant's attendance,
complainant has not shown that a similarly situated employee outside of
her protected group had more or as much unscheduled leave as she but was
not terminated. As for complainant's difficulties in getting along with
others, the record establishes that complainant and her job instructor
did not interact well. Complainant's supervisor decided to personally
train complainant after the job instructor requested that she be relieved
of her duties as instructor for complainant. Complainant's supervisor
testified that this was the first complaint she had received from a
new employee in the six years that she had utilized the job instructor.
A coworker testified that complainant yelled at her in the cafeteria when
she denied a romantic relationship with the father of complainant's child.
We find that complainant has not refuted the agency's position that she
experienced difficulties in getting along with her coworkers. We further
find that complainant has failed to establish that similarly situated
individuals outside of her protected group exhibited similar conduct but
were not terminated. Complainant has not shown that the agency acted
unreasonably and in a discriminatory manner when it terminated her.
We find that complainant has not shown that the agency's stated reasons
for its action were pretext intended to mask discriminatory intent.
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's decision,
because a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that
discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
October 18, 2002
__________________
Date