01984166
04-20-2001
Tracey L. King, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Midwest Area), Agency.
Tracey L. King v. United States Postal Service
01984166
April 20, 2001
.
Tracey L. King,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Midwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01984166
Agency No. 1-I-536-1001-94
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission
accepts the complainant's appeal from the agency's final decision in the
above-entitled matter. Complainant claimed that she was discriminated
against on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal (prior EEO activity)
when: 1) she was kept out of her place of rotation; 2) she was left
to key and ledge load by herself; 3) a male coworker was physically
threatening as well as verbally abusive; 4) she was replaced by a Part
Time Flexible (PTF) employee on the flat sorters, and later replaced by
a male coworker; 5) a coworker (CW1) was abusive to her; 6) a meeting
was held to determine how they could get mail out with only complainant
and CW1 on the crew; 7) a coworker was put on the flat sorter ahead of
her for a period of half an hour; 8) a male coworker shouted at her;
9) she was not allowed to rotate up at the correct time from keying to
sweeping and ledge loading; 10) she was subjected to harassment; 11) a
male coworker refused to rotate with her and was verbally abusive; 12)
she was taken off of her assigned machine to set up another machine by
herself; 13) she was harassed by supervisor one and supervisor two; 14)
another coworker used filthy language with her; 15) she was removed as
204-B Acting Supervisor by the plant manager; and 16) she received a
letter denying her a promotion to supervisor.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory events, complainant was employed
as a Flat Sorter at the agency's Main Post Office in Madison, Wisconsin.
Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on April 26, 1996.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed
of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency.
When complainant failed to respond within the time period specified
in 29 C.F.R. � 1614, the agency issued a final decision, dated March
13, 1998. It is this final decision that complainant now appeals.
On appeal, complainant contends, among other things, that the agency
erred in finding that complainant had failed to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination on any basis and that the agency's explanations
that focused on complainant's alleged failure to get along with her
coworkers involved credibility determinations that should have been left
to a hearing examiner.
Applying the legal standard outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973), 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 the McDonnell Douglas standard
to reprisal cases), we find no basis to disturb the agency's decision.
With respect to complainant's hostile environment claims, the incidents
of harassment asserted herein are very general and, if anything, do not
appear to be severe and pervasive enough to support a discriminatory
hostile work environment claim. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
114 S.Ct. 367 (1993) (citing Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57
(1986)); Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05950152 (February
8, 1996). The conduct in question is evaluated from the standpoint
of a reasonable person, taking into account the particular context in
which it occurred. Highlander v. K.F.C. Management Co., 805 F.2d 644
(6th Cir. 1986). Unless the conduct is very severe, a single incident
or a group of isolated incidents will not be regarded as discriminatory
treatment. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).
In applying the legal standard set forth in Harris supra, we find that
in considering each alleged act of discrimination, individually or as a
group, complainant has failed to establish that she was harassed based
on gender or reprisal.
Moreover, while complainant may have established a prima facie case of
discrimination in some instances, she failed to provide any evidence of
pretext in the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for
its actions. In this regard, the record reflects that complainant did in
fact have conflicts with a number of her coworkers, both male and female.
However, no evidence was presented to show that an action taken by the
agency was based on her gender or resulted from reprisal for her prior
EEO activity.
Finally, with respect to complainant's contention on appeal that the
agency's explanations involved credibility determinations best left to
a hearing examiner, we note that the complainant had the opportunity to
request a hearing. Further, beyond her bald and general assertions of
harassment, she failed to present any witnesses, by way of testimonial
affidavit, to effectively rebut the agency's position.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision
because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that discrimination occurred.
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
April 20, 2001
__________________
Date