Vera F. Sturgis, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 8, 2000
01a00040 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2000)

01a00040

03-08-2000

Vera F. Sturgis, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Vera F. Sturgis, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A00040

) Agency Nos. 1-D-221-1041-96

William J. Henderson, ) 1-D-221-1060-96

Postmaster General, ) Hearing Nos. 100-97-7599X

United States Postal Service, ) 100-98-7395X

Agency. )

________________________________)

DECISION

The Commission finds that the agency's September 15, 1999 decision

finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant based

on complainant's sex (female), race (Black), and retaliation for prior

protected activity, was proper.<1>

The agency defined the complaints as alleging:

Complainant was discriminated against from October 15, 1995 to November

29, 1995, on the basis of retaliation for prior EEO activity, when she

was denied upward mobility training, details, and acting supervisory

positions.

Complainant was discriminated against from November 30, 1995 to January

11, 1996, on the bases of sex, race, and in retaliation for prior EEO

activity, when she was denied upward mobility training, details, and

acting supervisory positions.

Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.

An administrative judge issued a decision without holding a hearing.

The Commission finds that the material facts were not in dispute and

that the administrative judge properly issued a decision without holding

a hearing. The administrative judge concluded that complainant failed

to show that she was discriminated against. In the agency's September

15, 1999 decision the agency concurred with the conclusions of the

administrative judge and found no discrimination.

The Commission rejects complainant's argument on appeal that the

administrative judge improperly failed to take sanctions against the

agency. The Commission finds no abuse of discretion by the administrative

judge in her processing of the matter.

The Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO A) stated in an affidavit

that he did receive complainant's October 25, 1995 letter requesting

upward mobility, details, and acting supervisor positions. MDO A stated

(regarding the time period of November 30, 1995 through January 11,

1996):

I never provided [complainant] a written denial to her letter, however,

she was not afforded the opportunities requested. I had utilized

[complainant] in the past as [an] acting supervisor and found her

performance unacceptable, and as a result, I stopped utilizing her

approximately 08/95.

MDO A stated in a separate affidavit that complainant was denied upward

mobility training for the period from October 15, 1995 to November

29, 1995, because the �[MDO A] had used her in the past and found her

unacceptable.�

The MDO B stated in an affidavit that she did not receive complainant's

October 25, 1995 letter requesting upward mobility, details, and acting

supervisor positions. MDO B stated:

I know of no upward mobility training that was available to any during

the identified period - 11/30/95 through 01/11/96. I generally, as a

rule, do not �detail� craft employees.

. . . I decided to discontinue utilizing [complainant] as an acting

supervisor because she did not have the leadership skills necessary

to effectively [manage] a group of people and get the work done.

She required constant supervision in the area of her performance as a

supervisor. It reached a point where I felt as though I had to �baby-sit�

her . . . she demonstrated no improvement in the area of supervision.

The MDO B also stated in a separate affidavit regarding the denial of

acting supervisor assignments:

[Complainant] seemed to have a problem in identifying mediocre performance

and making the necessary corrections of the employee's behavior or

work habits. I was constantly pointing things out to her for correction.

Regarding the training for the period October 15, 1995 to November 29,

1995, MDO B stated that she knew of �no upward mobility training that was

available to anyone during the identified period� and that complainant

made no such request of MDO B.

The Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The Commission agrees with

the administrative judge's finding that complainant failed to refute

the agency's statements regarding her performance problems.

After reviewing complainant's arguments on appeal and the complete record,

the Commission finds that the administrative judge correctly determined

that complainant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that

the alleged decision to deny complainant upward mobility training,

details, and acting supervisory positions was motivated in any way

by prohibited discriminatory animus. Because complainant's affidavit

may indicate that complainant is alleging sex and race discrimination

(in addition to retaliation) for the period of October 15, 1995 to

November 29, 1995, the Commission has considered these additional bases

of discrimination. The Commission's decision finding no discrimination

also includes a finding of no sex and race discrimination for the time

period of October 15, 1995 to November 29, 1995.

The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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:

March 8, 2000

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:

_____________________ _________________________ Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the 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.