01A23574_r
01-09-2003
Anita Griffin, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Anita Griffin v. United States Postal Service
01A23574
January 9, 2003
.
Anita Griffin,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23574
Agency No. 1E-997-0019-98
Hearing No. 380-99-8130X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
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.
During the relevant time, complainant was serving her probationary
period as a Mail Processing Clerk, at the agency's Anchorage Plant,
Anchorage, Alaska. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal EEO complaint on May 1, 1998, alleging that she was
discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American), color
(black), and sex (female) when on March 27, 1998, she was terminated
from her position during her probationary period.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following the April 23,
2002 hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.
The AJ determined that complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination on the bases of race, color, and sex. The AJ further
concluded that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its action. Specifically, the AJ noted that complainant's two
Supervisors testified that they, as well as a third Supervisor, agreed to
terminate complainant because of problems with her work performance and
conduct; and that their decision to terminate complainant was not due
to race, color, or sex. One Supervisor testified that it was unusual
to have a new probationary employee involved in so many conflicts
with other employees. The AJ noted that although management did not
adhere to its own procedures for establishing a clear documentation
of any pattern of less than satisfactory performance by complainant, a
pattern of confrontational behavior by complainant nonetheless existed.
In this regard, the AJ noted that complainant had received counseling
concerning her work performance and the need for teamwork in the job
during her probationary period. Further, the AJ found that complainant
did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated
reason was a pretext to mask unlawful retaliation.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings
by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,
477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not
discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard
Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law
are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing
was held.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the AJ's
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record
and 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 evidence that any of the agency's actions
at issue in this case, were motivated by discriminatory animus toward
complainant's race, color, or sex. We discern no basis to disturb
the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful review of the record,
including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's response,
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we AFFIRM the agency's final order.
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
January 9, 2003
__________________
Date