01985856
11-17-2000
Crystal Hart, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Crystal Hart v. U.S. Postal Service
01985856
November 17, 2000
.
Crystal Hart,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01985856
Agency No. 4F-945-1135-96
Hearing No. 370-97-2172X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
bases of race (white), national origin (German) and reprisal (prior EEO
activity) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> For the reasons stated herein,
the agency's FAD is affirmed.
According to the record, the agency hired complainant in December 1994 as
a Rural Carrier Relief (RCR)<2> in a California facility of the agency.
While a RCR, complainant held the dual appointment of casual clerk.
Both positions were limited term appointments and expired in July 1995.
In September 1995, the agency hired complainant as a Rural Carrier
Associate (RCA)<3> with a probationary period of 90 worked days
or one year, whichever came first. In a letter dated January 11,
1996, the agency terminated complainant's RCA appointment effective
January 24 charging her with failure to report for duty as scheduled
and unsatisfactory work performance. Believing she was a victim of
discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently,
filed a complaint alleging that the agency discriminated against her
based on race (white), national origin (German), and reprisal (prior
EEO activity)<4> when it terminated her appointment.
At the conclusion of the complaint's investigation, complainant received a
copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision after a hearing,
finding no discrimination. The AJ concluded that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that complainant
failed to establish pretext. The agency issued a FAD concurring with
the AJ's finding of no unlawful employment discrimination. This appeal
followed.<5>
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings
by an Administrative Judge 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 that discriminatory intent did not exist is a factual finding.
See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
In the instant case, the AJ found that complainant's termination from
her RCA appointment was not predicated upon discriminatory reasons.
The Commission has reviewed the full administrative record and we find
that the AJ's factual findings support his ultimate factual conclusion
of no discrimination based on race or national origin. Based on the
foregoing, we AFFIRM the agency's decision of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
November 17, 2000
__________________
Date
1On 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2A RCR substituted for absent regular carriers on an emergency basis.
3As a RCA, complainant was expected to work at least one day a week,
typically on Mondays, and to work on an as needed basis for an absent
regular carrier.
4Prior to the hearing on the matter herein, the Administrative Judge
issued a Partial Order finding no discrimination based on reprisal.
He concluded that a letter that discussed various adverse actions by
the responsible management official (RMO) in this case, was addressed
to a union state steward and was signed by five employees of the RMO
including complainant, did not constitute prior EEO activity. The bases
that remained were race and national origin.
5The Commission notes that, on appeal, complainant indicated that the
agency failed to comply with a discovery order and that the AJ would
not compel discovery. Based on the record and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.109(d), we find that the AJ's action was within his discretion.