01a54407
10-12-2005
Evelyn R. Craig, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Evelyn R. Craig v. United States Postal Service
01A54407
October 12, 2005
.
Evelyn R. Craig,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54407
Agency No. 4-H-335-0096-04
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's decision dated
March 9, 2005, finding no discrimination. In her complaint, complainant,
a Mail Processor at the agency's St. Petersburg, Florida Post Office,
alleged discrimination based on disability (diabetes, stress) when she
was subjected to a hostile work environment. Specifically, complaint
indicated that: (1) she was confronted by management in front of her
peers; (2) she was harassed after she complained about cartoon drawings
about her that were displayed on the workroom floor; and (3) she was
forced to seek medical treatment as a result of the agency's lack of
action concerning her harassment claims. The agency, in its decision,
concluded that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions, which complainant failed to rebut.
After a review of the record, the Commission, assuming arguendo that
complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, finds
that the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the alleged actions. Complainant claimed that during a closed door
meeting in February 2004, a Manager, Customer Service, told her and
the union steward that she worked like a �snail� and that she should be
ashamed of herself. The Manager stated that during the relevant time
period, she did discuss complainant's poor work habits and the need for
improvement, but she denied making the alleged statements.
With regard to the alleged cartoon drawings both the Manager and
complainant's supervisor stated that they were not aware of any cartoons
of complainant. They observed one cartoon but did not recognize it
as complainant. They had it removed anyway and thrown away, but they
were later informed that complainant retrieved it from the dumpster.
They stated that they learned that the union steward was responsible
for the drawing and he was given an official discussion. The Manager
indicated that she never saw another drawing following the foregoing
discussion. Both the Manager and the supervisor stated that complainant
never complained to them about the alleged drawings.
Complainant claimed that following her use of FMLA, her coworkers would
report to her that her supervisor was angry with her because she was
absent from work. Complainant indicated that both the Manager and her
supervisor and a number of her coworkers were creating a hostile work
environment. Both the Manager and the supervisor stated that there were
no more demands on complainant than on any other employee. The supervisor
indicated that complainant's absence from work did pose a problem because
it resulted in a heavier workload for the other clerks. The supervisor
also indicated that complainant's taking FMLA had no bearing on the
situation and no action was taken against complainant for that.
The record contains a statement from complainant's coworker indicating
that all the problems with complainant began when the Station Manager
arrived at their facility. He stated that the Station Manger was a
micro-manager who wanted employees to work constantly except for their
two breaks and lunch and watched everyone. The coworker stated that
the Station Manager did not like clerks leaving mail for the next day
and it was complainant's supervisor's job to take corrective action.
The coworker also stated that when complainant did not come to work,
it affected the rest of the clerks' work performance and vacation time.
During the relevant time period, asserted the coworker, another clerk
volunteered to change her non-scheduled day so that he could have two
days off.
The record also contains a statement from another coworker indicating
that after the Station Manager's arrival, complainant's productivity and
effort at work became progressively worse, whereas prior to his arrival,
she performed her duties with a higher sense of urgency and helped to get
letter carriers get their mail in a timely manner. The record indicates
that complainant was off work from December 10-15, 2003; working four
hours per day from December 16, 2003 through January 5, 2004; off work
from January 6 through 21, 2004; working four hours per day from January
22 through February 22, 2004; off work from February 23 through March 1,
2004; and working four hours per day from March 2 through 22, 2004.
After a review of the record, the Commission finds that complainant
failed to establish a claim of harassment amounting to a hostile
work environment. The Commission also finds that complainant failed
to show that the agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that complainant failed to
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was subjected to the
alleged discrimination. The agency's decision finding no discrimination
is AFFIRMED.<1>
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 12, 2005
__________________
Date
1The Commission does not address in this decision whether complainant
is a qualified individual with a disability.