01986179
07-26-2000
Gail C. Manning, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Gail C. Manning v. United States Postal Service
01986179
July 26, 2000
Gail C. Manning, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01986179
) Agency No. 4D290007697
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Gail C. Manning (complainant) timely initiated an appeal to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from the final decision of the
agency concerning complainant's claim that the agency violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The
appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,37,659 (1999)
(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>
The issues on appeal are whether the agency discriminated against
complainant on the basis of race (Black) when, on or about: (1) May 27,
1997, after casing her mail, she was told to leave as there was no further
work; (2) from May 27, 1997, and ongoing, she was treated differently
than other employees when she was told to leave work early and to use
annual leave, sick leave, or leave without pay (LWOP).
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint raising the issues stated
above and the complaint was investigated. Complainant requested an EEOC
hearing but it was not requested within the designated time period.
Consequently, the agency issued a final agency decision (FAD) which
found no discrimination Complainant now appeals the FAD but submits no
specific contentions on appeal.
The agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race discrimination because she did not show that there were
similarly-situated individuals who were treated more favorably under
essentially the same circumstances. The agency concluded that the three
comparative employees cited by complainant were �limited duty� employees,
unlike complainant, who was a �light-duty� employee.
However, the agency also concluded that it articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions namely, that complainant had
a seizure disorder and the only work available to her was casing her own
route so it could be delivered by a part-time flexible (PTF) city carrier
who had no restrictions.<2> The agency stated that complainant was allowed
to work in a light duty status based on work availability. Finally,
the agency found that complainant failed to establish pretext.
Complainant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment
which the agency analyzed under the three-tiered analytical framework
outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Texas
Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.248 (1981).
Applying these legal standards, we find that the agency properly
determined that complainant failed to prove her claim of race
discrimination. Complainant submitted no evidence that other light- duty
employees with similar restrictions and outside of her protected group
were given more work or that other suitable work was available during the
relevant time period. There is also no other record evidence which points
to race discrimination. Accordingly, after carefully considering the
record, we find that complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that she was illegally discriminated against as claimed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (MO300)
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:
07-26-00
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:
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing 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 We note that the record contains no evidence that complainant intended
to file a claim of disability discrimination.