01a03660
08-28-2000
Alyce L. Lumpkins, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (N.E./N.Y. Metro Region), Agency.
Alyce L. Lumpkins v. United States Postal Service (N.E./N.Y. Metro
Region)
01A03660
August 28, 2000
.
Alyce L. Lumpkins,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(N.E./N.Y. Metro Region),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03660
Agency No. 4A-110-0057-99
Hearing No. 160-AO-8046X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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.<1>
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges she was
discriminated against on the basis of race (Black) when, during the
period December 14, 1998 through January 6, 1999, she was denied the
opportunity to work as an Acting Supervisor (204-B).
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
action.
The record reveals that complainant, a Distribution/Window Clerk at the
agency's Far Rockaway, New York Post Office facility, filed a formal EEO
complaint with the agency on April 12, 2000, alleging that the agency
had discriminated against her as referenced above. At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the investigative
report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). Determining that there was no genuine issue as to any material
fact, however, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination.
The AJ concluded that even assuming complainant had established a prima
facie case of race discrimination, the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action, namely, that the agency replaced
complainant in order to give other qualified employees the opportunity
to work as a 204-B.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reason was a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ declared that
she would not �second-guess an Agency's personnel decision absent
a demonstrably discriminatory motive.� The agency's final action
implemented the AJ's decision.
Complainant makes five contentions on appeal, as follows:
1. She was performing an adequate job as a 204-B;
2. The evaluation of the Manager, Customer Services, that she was
not forceful enough with the employees she supervised as a 204-B, was
erroneous;
3. The Acting Postmaster tried to discourage and obstruct her from
serving as a 204-B by telling her that she would have to work as a window
clerk for six months before he would consider her being a 204-B;
4. Another employee who was of Chinese descent and acting as a 204-B
was also replaced after she had a disagreement with the Postmaster; and
5. Complainant's being replaced was done to discourage complainant and
boost the career of her White replacement.
The agency did not reply to complainant's contentions on appeal.
As to complainant's first two contentions, we note that the Postmaster
stated that complainant's performance as a 204-B was acceptable, and
his was the rating that mattered. As to the third contention, we find
that the Acting Postmaster articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for asking complainant to work as a window clerk for six months,
i.e., she had had large cash shortages when she last worked as a window
clerk and had to master the duties of that position in order to show
window clerks whom she would supervise that she had full knowledge of
their job responsibilities. Finally, as to complainant's fourth and
fifth contentions, we also find that the Postmaster also articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for replacing complainant and the
employee of Chinese descent: to give a third qualified employee the same
opportunity to function in the 204-B position as he did complainant and
the employee of Chinese descent.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission thus finds
that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and
referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note
that complainant failed to present by a necessary preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's replacement of her as a 204-B was motivated
by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race, in view of the agency
reasons explained above. Hence, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
decision. Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including
complainant's contentions on appeal and arguments and evidence not
specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final
action.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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
August 28, 2000
Date
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.