01a60659
03-30-2006
Ophelia J. Austrie, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Ophelia J. Austrie v. United States Postal Service
01A60659
March 30, 2006
.
Ophelia J. Austrie,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A60659
Agency No. 1H-340-0001-05
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission
affirms the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Data Conversion Operator at the agency's Remote Encoding Center
in Tampa, Florida. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on November 18, 2004, alleging that she was
discriminated against on the bases of her sex and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when on September 29, 2004, management issued her a Notice
of Removal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or
alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. Complainant
initially requested a hearing, but subsequently rescinded that request
and the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that assuming, arguendo, complainant
established a prima facie case of sex and reprisal discrimination,
it nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its action. Specifically, the FAD found that complainant was issued
a Notice of Removal because of continued attendance problems. The FAD
concluded that complainant failed to show that this articulated reason
was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Complainant makes no arguments
on appeal, and the agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
As a preliminary matter, we note that we review the decision on an appeal
from a FAD issued without a hearing de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
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). 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).
Here, we find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions which complainant failed to show was a pretext
for sex or reprisal discrimination. The record reflects that the agency
issued complainant a Notice of Removal, dated September 29, 2004, for
continued unsatisfactory attendance - tardiness - absent without leave
(AWOL). The record further reflects that this notice was the final
step in progressive discipline after complainant was issued a Letter of
Warning, and Notices for both a seven-day and a fourteen-day suspension,
as a result of her continuing poor attendance. Additionally, the record
shows that following the fourteen-day suspension, complainant accrued an
additional six instances of unscheduled absences and that complainant
was aware that such continued absences could result in termination.
We find that complainant has not presented any evidence to show that
the agency's articulated reasons for issuing her the Notice of Removal
were pretextual. Accordingly, we affirm the agency's final order finding
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
March 30, 2006
__________________
Date