05A10925
10-24-2001
Lucille Taylor, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Lucille Taylor v. United States Postal Service
05A10925
October 24, 2001
.
Lucille Taylor,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A10925
Appeal No. 01981725
Agency No. 4F-940-1062-96
Hearing No. 370-96-2765X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Lucille
Taylor v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01981725
(June 20, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the
requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
Complainant alleged she was discriminated against on the bases of race
(Black), color (black), religion (Christian), age (D.O.B. 3/4/48),
disability (right shoulder tendonitis) and reprisal (prior EEO activity)
when: (1) she received Letters of Warning on October 17, 1995 and
October 28, 1995; (2) on November 17, 1995, complainant's supervisor
(CS) allegedly followed her to her locker; (3) on November 28, 1995, a
co-worker was allegedly allowed to use abusive language toward her and
hide her mail; (4) on November 28, 1995, she was allegedly denied use
of the telephone, told to leave the facility and CS bumped her with his
stomach; and (5) on November 29, 1995, CS denied her the ability to work
(by ejecting her from the facility as disruptive).
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race, color, religion or age discrimination. Further, the AJ
found that the incident wherein complainant alleged that CS followed
her to her locker was not harassment as alleged, as the incident was
not sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work
environment. The AJ further found that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Initially, the AJ
found that complainant failed to demonstrate that she is a qualified
individual with a disability, as there was no evidence establishing
that her shoulder injury was anything more than transitory in nature.
The AJ further found that even assuming arguendo that complainant was an
individual with a disability, she failed to establish a prima facie case
of disparate treatment, as there are no similarly situated employees who
were treated differently. The agency's FAD implemented the AJ's decision.
In our initial decision, the Commission agreed with the AJ's conclusion
that complainant failed to establish that CS discriminated against her
on the bases of her race, color, religion or age. In addition, we found
that even if it was assumed that complainant was a qualified individual
with a disability, she failed to establish discrimination under the
Rehabilitation Act. In so finding, we noted that while complainant
contended that she was given the October 17, 1995 Letter of Warning
for refusing to work outside of her medical restrictions, there was
no basis upon which to disturb the AJ's finding that the assistance CS
required complainant to provide involved routing flats which would not
have required complainant to work outside of her medical restrictions or
otherwise lift greater than ten (10) pounds. Finally, the Commission
found that the even if complainant established a prima facie case of
reprisal, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions which were not pretextual in nature.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant alleges that she was
discriminated against and harassed by a co-worker and CS, and that
agency management should be held responsible for the discrimination as
management was aware it. However, as we noted in our initial decision,
the AJ considered complainant's allegation regarding a co-worker's
language, but found that CS could not be held responsible for failing to
take corrective action inasmuch as complainant conceded that she had not
told CS that the co-worker at issue had used such language. In addition,
the Commission agreed with the AJ's finding that the described incidents
between CS and complainant were insufficient to constitute harassment
as alleged.
Thus, after a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration,
the previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that
the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and
it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01981725 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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 24, 2001
__________________
Date