01984620
06-08-2000
Debby A. Henkhuzens, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.
Debby A. Henkhuzens v. United States Postal Service
01984620
June 8, 2000
Debby A. Henkhuzens, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01984620
v. ) Agency No. 1C-441-1109-96
) Hearing No. 220-97-5062X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges she was discriminated
against on the bases of reprisal (prior EEO complaints) and race (White)
when she was issued an Emergency Placement in Off-Duty Status from April
23, 1996, to May 9, 1996.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
decision finding no discrimination.
The record reveals that complainant, an Automation Clerk at the agency's
Cleveland, Ohio General Mail facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with
the agency on June 24, 1996, alleging that the agency had discriminated
against her as referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing,
the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.<2>
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of reprisal discrimination. In so finding, the AJ noted that
complainant's 1994 EEO complaint against the Manager, Distribution
Operations (MDO), whom she accused of being behind the decision to place
her on emergency leave, was too remote in time to establish the required
causal connection. Furthermore, no evidence was presented that the MDO
was aware that complainant had filed an EEO complaint against him on
April 15 or 19, 1996, before she was placed on emergency leave status
on April 23, 1996.
The AJ also concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of racial discrimination. In this regard, the AJ found
that she failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not
in her protected class (White) were treated differently under similar
circumstances, i.e., when they took copies of another employee's clock
ring time records without official agency permission.
The AJ further concluded that the agency had articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The AJ determined that
complainant had violated a co-worker's privacy under the Privacy Act
when she took copies of the co-worker's clock ring time records without
official agency permission.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reason was a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination or retaliation. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ
determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the
MDO was behind the decision to place the complainant on emergency leave,
which was actually made by a manager under his supervision.
The agency's final decision concurred with the AJ's decision. Neither the
complainant nor the agency made any contentions on appeal.
Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
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).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds 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 were in
retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity or were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's protected group . We discern
no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful
review of the record, including arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
June 8, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 On 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.
2 Pursuant to 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,37,649 (1999) (to be codified at 29
C.F.R.� 1614.109(i), an AJ's Recommended Decision becomes a final
decision which the agency cannot overrule.