01974216
05-24-1999
Darlene King, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic), Agency.
Darlene King, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01974216
) Agency No. 4D-280-1065-95
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 140-95-8192X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On April 25, 1997, Darlene King (appellant) timely appealed the final
decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), dated April 10,
1997, concluding she had not been discriminated against in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e
et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged that agency officials
had discriminated against her on the bases of her race (Black) and sex
(female) when, in December 1995, she was terminated from her position as
a City Carrier during her probationary period. This appeal is accepted
in accordance with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
The evidence of record reveals that appellant was initially hired as
a City Carrier at the Morehead City, North Carolina, Post Office in
September 1994, subject to a ninety-day probationary period. Appellant
was hired following an interview by both the Morehead Postmaster
and the Supervisor of Customer Service. By letter dated December 5,
1994, appellant was notified that she was being terminated prior to the
completion of her probationary period because of poor work performance.
Specifically, the removal notice identified deficiencies in both work
quantity and work quality. The agency produced work evaluations provided
to appellant at the thirty and sixty-day marks into her probationary
period which indicated that appellant's work performance was at an
unacceptable level and detailed the observed deficiencies. Moreover, the
Postmaster testified that he personally received three customer complaints
concerning appellant's work. An agency employee who routinely handled
customer complaints confirmed that he had also received complaints about
appellant's work. Appellant, on the other hand, contended that complaints
were also received about other carriers but they were not terminated.
In addition, she alleged that she was given inadequate training in the
performance of her duties. Finally, she asserted that she was terminated
in order to make way for the hiring of the white female employee who
transferred from another station in order to replace her.
On February 27, 1995, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint with
the agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her
as referenced above. The agency accepted the complaint and conducted
an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant
requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ).
On January 14, 1997, following a hearing at which six witnesses testified,
the AJ issued a decision from the bench, concluding no discrimination
had occurred on either of the bases alleged. In that decision, the AJ
initially found that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of
race and/or sex discrimination because she failed to establish that there
were other similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably.
Moreover, the AJ went on to conclude that even if appellant had raised an
initial inference of discrimination, the agency successfully rebutted
that inference with its articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the decision to terminate appellant's employment prior to
the conclusion of her probationary period. The AJ went on to hold that
appellant failed to meet her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions in this
matter were unbelievable or that its actions were more likely motivated
by discriminatory factors.
On April 10, 1997, the agency adopted the findings and conclusions of
the AJ and issued a final decision finding no discrimination. It is
from this decision that appellant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission finds
that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts and
properly analyzes the case using the appropriate regulations, policies
and laws. Based on the evidence of record, the Commission discerns
no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Nothing
proffered by appellant on appeal differs significantly from the arguments
raised before, and given full consideration by, the AJ. Accordingly,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision which adopted the AJ's finding of
no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. � l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from
the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil
action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY
(30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or
to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the
jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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:
May 24, 1999
__________________ __________________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations