Linda F. Wright, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 20, 2007
0120072379 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 20, 2007)

0120072379

08-20-2007

Linda F. Wright, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.


Linda F. Wright,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southwest Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072379

Hearing No. 461-2007-00018X

Agency No. 4G-700-0043-04

DECISION

On April 18, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's April

3, 2007, final order 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 for the Commission's de novo review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405(a).

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant had

worked as a Casual Carrier, on a 90-day temporary appointment, at the

agency's Baton Rouge Post Office facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

On February 25, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that

she was discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American),

sex (female), color (Black), age (D.O.B. 01/28/61), and in reprisal for

prior protected EEO activity when

1. on November 29, 2003, her supervisor made her perform unsafe acts

(deliver mail to customers and collect mail from the collection boxes

in the dark) and on December 1, 2003, she reported it to the supervisor

in Safety and Personnel; and

2. on December 24, 2003, she was told she would not be offered

reinstatement and that her last day would be December 31, 2003, and her

supervisor refused to allow her an exit review.

Prior to the completion of the investigation, the agency dismissed

complainant's complaint (which included one additional issue, not listed

above) in its entirety for filing a civil action on the same matter.

In Wright v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A45605 (December

22, 2004), the Commission affirmed the dismissal of the complaint

for the issues listed above, but remanded the remaining issue for an

investigation on the merits of the claim.1 Complainant filed a request

for reconsideration, claiming that the District Court had dismissed her

civil action without prejudice prior to the issuance of the Commission's

decision. In EEOC Request No. 05A50739 (August 3, 2006), the Commission

reopened the previous decision on its own motion, finding that the agency

had more likely than not, been notified of the dismissal of the civil

action but had failed to notify the Commission. As a result, issues

1 and 2, above, were remanded to the agency for further processing,

in accordance with the regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.

At the conclusion of the investigation into the two remanded issues,

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). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The agency

submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing on February 26, 2007.

Complainant submitted an objection to the agency's motion on March 2,

2007. The agency responded to complainant's objection on March 6, 2007.

The AJ assigned to the case granted the agency's motion, and issued a

decision without a hearing on March 20, 2007. The agency subsequently

issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding that complainant failed

to prove that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged.

After a thorough review of the record, and the arguments submitted by the

complainant on appeal, we find that the AJ's decision without a hearing

was appropriate, as no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute.

See Petty v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11,

2003); Murphy v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July

11, 2003). We further find that the AJ's conclusion that complainant

has not shown that she was discriminated against based on her race,

color, sex, age, or in reprisal for any previous EEO activity, and the

agency's implementation of that decision, was correct, and we AFFIRM

the agency's finding of no discrimination.

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

8-20-07

__________________

Date

1 The agency conducted an investigation into the remanded issue and,

pursuant to complainant's request for an agency decision, issued a final

agency decision, which found no discrimination. Complainant appealed

that decision to the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01A54193 (December

22, 2005), which affirmed the agency's finding. Complainant's request

for reconsideration was denied in EEOC Request No. 05A60363 (April 14,

2006).

??

??

??

??

2

0120072379

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120072379