0120090960
04-29-2009
Debra A. Alley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Debra A. Alley,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090960
Agency No. 1E981004908
DECISION
On December 20, 2008, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
November 25, 2008 final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Tractor Trailer Operator at the agency's Processing and Distribution
Center in Seattle, Washington. On August 7, 2008, complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on the bases
of race (Hispanic), sex (female), age (49 years at time of incidents),
and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under a statute that was
unspecified in the record when:
1. on June 13, 2008, complainant was removed from her position as
Acting Supervisor and returned to her driving duties.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with
complainant's request, the agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that complainant
failed to prove that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
Specifically the FAD found that complainant failed to state a claim of
discrimination because she incurred no harm from the agency's action
since she incurred no loss of pay or benefits. See FAD, pp. 20-21.
The FAD next found that, assuming complainant stated a valid claim,
she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she
was unable to identify otherwise similarly situated comparators who were
treated differently. See id., p. 22. The FAD found that the comparators
complainant identified as being treated differently were in fact treated
the same and were also removed from their Acting Supervisor positions
and returned to driving duties. Id. The FAD then found that, assuming
complainant established a prima facie case, the agency articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action and complainant failed
to establish that the agency's action was a pretext for discrimination.
Specifically, the FAD found that complainant's Manager (RMO1: Caucasian,
male, 43 years old at time of incident) and supervisor (RMO2: African
American, male, 58 years old at time of incident) averred that the Acting
Supervisor position was not a permanent position and that complainant
was returned to her driving duties because of a shortage of drivers.
Complainant presents no new argument on appeal and the agency requests
that we affirm the FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that
the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine
the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). As noted above, RMO1 averred that the
Acting Supervisory position was not permanent and that complainant was
returned to her driving duties because of a shortage of drivers caused by
an increase in leave requests by drivers. See Report of Investigation
(ROI) Affidavit B, p. 2. RMO2 concurred with this statement. See ROI,
Affidavit C, p. 2.
To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);
Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995). Complainant, however, has not offered
any evidence or argument to show that the agency's articulated reason
for its action is a pretext for prohibited discrimination. Therefore,
based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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 29, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120090960
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120090960