01A12237
10-23-2001
Tonya Anderson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny Area), Agency.
Tonya Anderson v. United States Postal Service (Allegheny Area)
01A12237
October 23, 2001
.
Tonya Anderson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Allegheny Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12237
Agency Nos. 1C-441-0027-00; 1C-441-0046-00
Hearing No. 220-A0-5299X
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 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges she was discriminated against on
the bases of race (Black), sex (female), disability (sprained left ankle)
and in reprisal for prior protected activity (prior EEO complaints) when:
she was issued a fourteen day suspension, effective November 22, 1999,
for conduct unbecoming a postal employee; failure to follow instructions;
failure to comply with safety rules and regulations; and insubordination
to a Supervisor; and
she was issued a notice of removal on January 12, 2000, for conduct
unbecoming a postal employee; violation of agreement; violation of �zero�
tolerance policy; failure to comply with postal police directions;
failure to comply with safety rules and regulations; and failure to
follow instructions.
For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final
decision.
At the relevant time, complainant was employed as a mail processor at
the agency's Cleveland, Ohio post office. Complainant filed formal EEO
complaints with the agency on January 5, 2000, and February 23, 2000,
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, race, or disability discrimination. Specifically, the AJ
found that complainant failed to demonstrate that similarly situated
employees not in her protected classes were treated differently under
similar circumstances. The AJ also concluded that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of reprisal in that she presented no
evidence that the alleged responsible management officials named in
the instant complaints had any knowledge of complainant's past EEO
activity. The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ erred in finding no reprisal
discrimination. The agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
Our review of an AJ's decision without a hearing is de novo. See EEOC
Management Directive 110 (MD-110) Chapt. 9-16 (1999). The relevant
facts in this case are not in dispute.
The record reflects that on October 21, 1999, complainant was issued a
notice of removal, which was later reduced to a fourteen-day suspension
through the agency's grievance process. Complainant states that on
September 24, 1999, while working overtime, a Manager (M1) approached
her and asked her to remove her radio headset. Complainant alleges she
told M1 that she could hear with the headset on, and because she was not
breaking down mail she was allowed to listen to music while she worked.
M1 then instructed complainant to speak with her Supervisor (S1).
Complainant further states that after telling S1 what had transpired,
S1 instructed complainant to return to work. Complainant states she did
not hear anything further from management with respect to this incident
until she received the October 21 letter of removal.
The letter of removal was reduced to a fourteen-day suspension which
was to begin on November 22, 1999. Complainant alleges that because
she could not believe she would receive a suspension for the incident
described above, she reported for work on November 22. According to the
record, complainant was told upon her arrival that her suspension was to
begin on that day and she should leave the facility. When she refused,
the Postal Police were called and complainant was escorted to her locker
to collect her belongings. Complainant was then asked to turn over
her identification badge, which she refused to do. The Postal Police
proceeded to handcuff complainant, at which point the identification
badge was removed from her pocket, and she was escorted off the premises.
On January 12, 2000, complainant was served with another notice of
removal.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120
S.Ct 2097 (2000); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292,
310 (5th Cir. 1981) (applying McDonnell Douglas to disability cases);
and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)
(applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the Commission concurs
with the AJ's finding that complainant did not establish a prima facie
case of discrimination based on race, sex, or disability discrimination,
since she did not demonstrate that an employee outside of her protected
group was treated more favorably under similar circumstances. Nor did
she present any other evidence from which an inference of discrimination
could be drawn. Further, complainant has not established a prima facie
case of reprisal in that she failed to show that the alleged responsible
management officials cited in the instant complaints had any knowledge
of complainant's past EEO activity at the time the incidents in question
occurred.
In conclusion, after a de novo review of the record, we find that there
are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The Commission finds
that the AJ correctly decided that summary judgment was appropriate
in this case, and the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision, therefore, we AFFIRM
the agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
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 23, 2001
__________________
Date