01a51796
03-31-2005
Crystal Shakespeare, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Crystal Shakespeare v. United States Postal Service
01A51796
March 31, 2005
.
Crystal Shakespeare,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51796
Agency No. 4J-481-0072-03
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her 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. and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the
following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a City Carrier at the agency's Fenkell Station in Detroit, Michigan.
Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on October 2, 2003, alleging that she was discriminated against
on the bases of sex (female), age (D.O.B. December 14, 1959), and reprisal
for prior EEO activity when on January 16, 2003, management overloaded her
case with mail and she was not provided with the assistance she requested.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of sex or age discrimination because she failed
to identify any similarly situated employees, outside her protected
classes, who were treated more favorably under similar circumstances.
The agency also concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of reprisal discrimination because she was not subjected
to any adverse action. The agency concluded, however, that even
assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima facie case on all
alleged bases, it nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, complainant's supervisor (S1)
stated that complainant was denied assistance because her route was not
overburdened on January 16, 2003. (Report of Investigation, Affidavit
B, 5). Additionally, S1 stated that complainant requested assistance
every morning, regardless of the volume of mail in her case, and that
it was often denied because she was not throwing mail to standard. Id.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the agency's articulated reasons are a pretext
for sex, age, or reprisal discrimination.
Complainant makes no contentions on appeal. The agency requests that
we affirm its FAD.
As a preliminary matter, we review the decision on an appeal from a FAD
issued without a hearing de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). To prevail
in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must satisfy the
three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish
a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse
employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567,
576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case,
however, since the agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory
reasons for its conduct. See United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997).
To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);
Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima
facie case of sex, age, and reprisal discrimination, the agency has
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
We also find that complainant has failed to show, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions
were pretextual, or were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. We note that the record supports the agency's contention that
complainant's case was not overburdened on January 16, 2003. (R.O.I.,
Summary, 4; Affidavit C, 4; Exhibit 8). Therefore, after a careful
review of the record, we affirm the FAD.
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
March 31, 2005
__________________
Date