01a01245
06-25-2002
Connie Morris v. United States Postal Service 01A01245 06-25-02 .Connie Morris, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Connie Morris v. United States Postal Service
01A01245
06-25-02
.Connie Morris,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01245
Agency Nos. 1-H-336-0134-98 & 1-H-336-0135-98
DECISION
On November 29, 1999, Connie Morris (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) initiated a timely appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (Commission) with regard to her complaint of
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq; and � 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted
by this Commission in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Based upon
a review of the record, and for the reasons stated herein, it is the
decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the final agency action.
The issues on appeal are whether complainant proved, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that she was discriminated against: 1. on the bases of
her race (black), sex (female), and disability (back injury) when her
leave request form was altered on June 14, 1998, and 2. on the bases of
her race, sex, disability, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity under
Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act when she was returned to her Clerk
position on June 17, 1998.
Complainant filed formal EEO complaints raising the above-referenced
allegations of discrimination. The agency accepted complainant's
complaints and consolidated the matters for processing. At the conclusion
of the investigation, the agency provided complainant with a copy of
the investigative report and notified her of her right to request an
administrative hearing. After complainant withdrew her request for a
hearing, the agency issued a final decision finding that she had not
been subjected to discrimination as alleged. It is from this decision
that complainant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
agency correctly determined that complainant was not subjected to
discrimination with regard to the matters at issue. The Commission
notes that while the agency stated, in part, that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case because she did not show that she was
treated differently than similarly situated employees, complainant must
only present evidence which, if unrebutted, would support an inference
that the agency's actions resulted from discrimination. See O'Connor
v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp., 116 S.Ct. 1307 (1996); Enforcement
Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp., EEOC Notice
No. 915.002, n. 4 (September 18, 1996).
Nevertheless, the agency correctly determined that, even assuming that
complainant had established a prima facie case with regard to any alleged
basis, she failed to show that the agency's stated reasons for the actions
were pretextual. Specifically, the Manager of Distribution Operations
stated that he changed complainant's leave request form because the
documentation provided from her doctor indicated that the absence was
related to personal illness and not her on the job injury. Further,
the record shows that complainant was given the leave requested, that
is, �sick leave in lieu of injured on duty leave� after she provided
additional information from her doctor. With regard to issue 2,
complainant was returned to her Clerk position once she reached maximum
medical improvement.<1> The record shows that both complainant and
a comparative employee were allowed to serve as Acting Supervisors in
the Attendance Control Office after sustaining job related injuries.
The Commission finds no evidence in the record to show that the actions in
question were in any way related to complainant's race, sex, disability,
or EEO activity. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to
AFFIRM the final agency decision.
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, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
______06-25-02____________________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify
that the decision was mailed to claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
Date
_________________________
1It is noted that complainant did not assert that she was denied
reasonable accommodation, and, in fact, stated that she did not require
any accommodation.