01975361
02-22-1999
Majoria Bragg, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Mid West), Agency.
Majoria Bragg v. United States Postal Service
01975361
February 22, 1999
Majoria Bragg, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01975361
) Agency No. 4-I-500-1004-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Great Lakes/Mid West), )
Agency. )
________________________________)
DECISION
On June 27, 1997, Majoria Bragg (hereinafter referred to as the appellant)
filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Commission) from the final decision of the United States Postal Service,
(hereinafter referred to as the agency) concerning her allegation that the
agency violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 791 et seq.
In her complaint, appellant alleged that the agency discriminated against
her on the bases of physical disability (Carpal Tunnel Syndrome), mental
disability (Bi-Polar Disorder), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when,
on September 29, 1995 she was harassed and given a reprimand regarding
her route<1>. This appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance
with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
During the period in question, appellant was employed with the
agency as a Letter Carrier at the Rock Island, Illinois Post Office.
Appellant filed a formal complaint of discrimination on December 30,
1995, in which she alleged that the agency discriminated against her as
referenced above. On September 29, 1995, appellant's supervisor held
a meeting with appellant in the presence of appellant's union steward.
During the meeting, appellant's supervisor stated that appellant failed
to follow the agency's instructions with respect to the route assistance
guide which the agency had provided to assist her in performing her duties
of distributing mail on her route. He then stated that since appellant
already had received letters of warning that she might be suspended.
Appellant's supervisor then asked appellant why she had not followed
the agency's instructions, and to give him a reason that would help
prevent the agency from suspending her.
Following an investigation of this complaint, on May 30, 1997, the
agency issued a final decision (FAD) finding no discrimination. It is
from this decision that appellant now appeals.
The agency found that appellant failed to state a claim pursuant to EEOC
Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), because she had not suffered any job
related injury or harm, and; therefore, her claim should be dismissed.
The discussion during the September 29, 1995 meeting was to assist
appellant in the use of the route assistance form. In addition, no
discipline, including any form of reprimand, resulted from the meeting.
As such, appellant suffered no personal harm or loss as a result of the
meeting and was not an aggrieved employee.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides that an agency shall
dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to state a
claim under �1614.103 or �1614.106(a) or states the same claim that
is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission.
In order to state a claim, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she
is an aggrieved employee. See Hobson v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Request No. 05891133 (March 2, 1990). An employee is aggrieved when some
personal loss or harm has been suffered with respect to a term, condition,
or privilege of employment. "Specifically, an employee must allege and
show a `direct, personal deprivation at the hands of the employer,' that
is, a present and unresolved harm or loss affecting a term, condition or
privilege of his/her employment." Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994) (quoting Taylor v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900367 (June 21, 1990)).
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds
that the agency's FAD properly dismissed appellant's complaint, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim. Therefore,
the Commission discerns no basis to disturb the agency's finding of no
discrimination. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
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. �1614.604(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. 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 (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:
February 22, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 During the investigation of her complaint, appellant withdrew the
bases of race and sex discrimination, and added physical disability
(Carpel Tunnel Syndrome) as a basis of discrimination.