05a00059
03-02-2000
Danielle Moore, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Danielle Moore v. United States Postal Service
05A00059
March 2, 2000
Danielle Moore, )
Complainant, )
) Request No. 05A00059
v. ) Appeal No. 01986863
) Agency No. 1A072002097
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 14, 1999, Danielle Moore (complainant) initiated a request to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Danielle Moore v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01986863 (September 19, 1999).<1> EEOC Regulations provide
that the Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous
Commission decision. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified
and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).
The party requesting reconsideration must submit written argument
or evidence which tends to establish one or more of the following
two criteria: the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will have a
substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the
agency. Complainant's request is denied.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the previous decision properly
affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision finding that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reflects, that for the relevant time period, complainant
was employed by the United States Postal Service a causal mailhandler.
It should be noted, that at the relevant time period, complainant was
the only casual mailhandler at the facility. On April 14, 1997, while
performing her duties at work, complainant pushed a GPC containing mail
into another GPC causing injury to her hand, resulting in limited duty.
After the accident transpired and complainant was warned to be careful
while working and to comply with safety procedures, she was observed
jumping over a skid. In response to complainant's failure to comply
with the safety regulations and for engaging in perilous behavior while
performing her duties, she was terminated. Thereafter, complainant
contacted an EEO Counselor claiming that she was terminated due to her
race and color. This matter was incapable of being informally resolved
and in July 1997, complainant filed a formal complaint claiming she was
terminated due to her race and color.
On August 26, 1998, the Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned to the case
determined that there were no issues of material fact and issued a
recommended decision without a hearing. The recommended decision found
that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
because complainant could not cite an appropriate comparison employee.
Furthermore, the AJ found that even if complainant did in fact
establish a prima facie case, the agency articulated a legitimate non
discriminatory reason for terminating complainant. Therefore, the AJ
found no discrimination in this complaint.
On August 31, 1998, the agency adopted the AJ's recommended decision
finding no discrimination.
On request, complainant submits no evidence demonstrating that the prior
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As discussed above, the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider
any previous decision when the party requesting reconsideration submits
written argument or evidence which tends to establish that any of
the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405 is met. In order for a case to
be reconsidered, the request must contain specific information which
meets the requirements of this regulation. It should be noted that the
Commission's scope of review on a request to reconsider is limited.
Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749
(September 28, 1989).
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Specifically, complainant has failed to present a scintilla of evidence
to demonstrate that the previous decision was improper.
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging
discrimination is a three-step process. Complainant has the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); See also Prewitt
v. U.S. Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292, 305 n.19 (5th Cir. 1981). If
complainant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the agency to
articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged
action. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). Complainant must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the legitimate reason articulated by the agency was not its true
reason, but was a pretext for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993).
If the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of
the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions
were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983); Padilla v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05940634 (June 27, 1995); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson
v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900456
(June 8, 1990).
The elements of the prima facie case are determined by the individual
circumstances of each case and the bases of discrimination alleged, but
regardless of the specific action at issue, complainant may establish
a prima facie case by demonstrating: 1) that she is a member of a
protected group; 2) that she is similarly situated to employees outside
of her protected group; 3) and that she was treated differently than
those employees. Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, Inc., 518
F.2d 864, 865 (6th Cir. 1975). We note that to establish a prima facie
case, complainant must only present evidence which, if unrebutted,
would support an inference that the agency's actions resulted from
discrimination. Furnco, 438 U.S. at 576.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that complainant is a member
of a protected group. However, the complainant has not established that
there are similarly situated employees outside her protected group that
were treated differently. In fact, complainant cannot establish other
similarly situated employees because she was the only casual mailhandler
at the agency. Furthermore, during the investigation, complainant's
supervisor provided a list of permanent employees that were also
terminated for engaging in perilous conduct while performing their duties
and complaint did not challenge the information. Therefore, complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Assuming arguendo, that complainant did establish a prima facie case of
discrimination, the agency has articulated a legitimate non discriminatory
reason for its action. In this case, the agency has articulated that
complainant was terminated for engaging in unsafe behavior. Complainant
being aware of this assertion by the agency, has not shown that it is in
fact a pretext, disguising the underlying discriminatory motive. Thus,
complainant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency has discriminated against her.
The Commission further notes that, in her request for reconsideration,
complainant asserts no evidence or argument. Consequently, based on
our review of the record, we find that complainant has failed to provide
evidence which would warrant a reconsideration of the previous decision.
CONCLUSION
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds complainant's
request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and
it is the decision of the Commission to deny complainant's request.
The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01986863 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal from a decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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:
March 2, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant
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 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.