01985371
12-23-1999
Valerie R. Richards, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Region), Agency.
Valerie R. Richards, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01985371
v. ) Agency No. 4K-220-0023-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
on the bases of race (Black) and sex (female) in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et
seq.<1> Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when her
merit evaluation was reduced from �far exceeded� to �met.� The appeal
is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following
reasons, the Commission affirms the FAD.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Supervisor of Customer Services at the agency's facility in
Alexandria, Virginia. Believing the agency discriminated against her,
complainant sought EEO counseling and filed a complaint on February 28,
1997. At the conclusion of the investigation, when complainant failed to
make a timely request for a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge,
the agency issued a final decision from which complainant now appeals.
Complainant did not submit a statement in support of her appeal.
The agency requests that we affirm the FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on the standards set forth
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-256 (1981),
the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we
note that complainant did not name any specific comparative employees
outside of her protected classes whom she deemed to have been treated
more favorably than she was, and there is no evidence from which we can
infer a discriminatory motive on the part of the agency.
Even assuming arguendo that complainant had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, the record indicates that complainant's manager
(CM) initially gave her a rating of �far exceeded� before consulting with
the Postmaster who subsequently informed CM that a �far exceeded� rating
required second level approval prior to being issued to the employee.
The Postmaster refused to approve the �far exceeded� rating because he
felt that the documentation CM provided in support of it was insufficient.
Thus CM was forced to reduce the rating to �met.� Complainant failed to
present evidence that these were not the real reasons her merit evaluation
was reduced. We also note that the Postmaster stated that to the best of
his knowledge, no other manager issued a merit rating of �far exceeded�
although several managers, including CM, issued �unacceptable� ratings.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including evidence not
specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
December 23, 1999
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________
Date
________________________
Equal Employment Assistant 1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations
governing the EEOC's federal sector complaint process went into effect.
These regulations apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at
any stage in the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission
will apply the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999),
where applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations,
as amended, may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.