0120111118
04-12-2012
Jeanette G. Williams, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Jeanette G. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111118
Agency No. 1H331001110
DECISION
On December 17, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s
November 18, 2010, final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Clerk at the Agency’s facility in Miami, Florida.
On February 11, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and
disability (heart condition) when:
1. On November 9, 2009, she received a Letter of Warning (LOW) for
Unsatisfactory Performance and
2. In January 2010, Complainant's manager left her medical documentation
out for employees to see.
The record indicates that on November 9, 2009, Complainant received a
letter of warning following incidents on October 6 and October 7, 2009.
According to the Agency, Complainant failed to properly perform her job
when she allowed bins to overflow with mail in violation of supervisory
orders. The record further indicates that Complainant's supervisor
observed that Complainant failed to ensure that the mail on her assigned
machines was processed and dispatched in a timely manner because she
failed to empty the mail bins accordingly. According to the Agency,
there were 27 full mail bins on the machines assigned to Complainant.
Consequently, on November 1, 2009, Complainant was issued a Letter of
Warning as a result of her unsatisfactory performance on October 6 and
October 7, 2009. The record further indicates that on May 28, 2010,
a grievance settlement resulted in the Letter of Warning being rescinded.
At the conclusion of the investigation of claim 1, the Agency provided
Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided
in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Specifically, the
Agency found that Complainant had not suffered any adverse employment
action because the Letter of Warning that was issued to Complainant on
November 1, 2009, was rescinded as a result of a grievance settlement.
Furthermore, the Agency found that even if Complainant were able to
establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for issuing Complainant a Letter
of Warning, and that Complainant failed to establish that those reasons
were pretext for discrimination.
With respect to claim 2, the record indicates that in a Partial Dismissal
decision dated February 19, 2010, the Agency dismissed claim 2 for
failure to state a claim in accordance with EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §
1614.107(a)(1). Specifically, the Agency determined that Complainant
failed to demonstrate that Complainant suffered any harm to the terms
and conditions of her employment as a result of the Agency's conduct.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de
novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614,
at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record
without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous
decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this on the bases
of race, age and reprisal, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He must generally establish a
prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse
employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Constr. 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 U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 71347 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 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 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that the Agency has
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
The record contains a copy of the Letter of Warning in question dated
November 1, 2009. The Letter states, in relevant part, that on October
6 and October 7, 2009, Complainant “failed to ensure that the mail on
[her] assigned machine was processed and dispatched timely by failing to
ensure that the bins were kept swept. Maintenance reports indicated that
there were a total of 27 full bins.” The Letter of Warning further
provided that Complainant had “previously been made aware that [she]
is required to obey the instructions given to [her] by Management.”
Because the Agency has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the alleged discriminatory event, Complainant now bears the burden
of establishing that the Agency's stated reasons are merely a pretext
for discrimination. See Shapiro v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this
by showing that the Agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason,
Id. (citing St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency's articulated
reasons for actions were pretext for discrimination. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that Complainant failed to establish that she
was subjected to unlawful discrimination as alleged. In that regard,
we find that the Agency's finding of no discrimination regarding claim
1 was proper and is affirmed.
The Commission finds that the Agency's dismissal of claim 2 for failure
to state a claim was improper. The Commission notes that the regulation
set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that
an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. We find,
however, that Complainant has raised a claim of improper disclosure of
confidential medical information. The Rehabilitation Act provides that,
with limited exceptions, information obtained regarding the medical
condition or history of any employee shall be treated as a confidential
medical record. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14. By its terms, this requirement
applies to confidential medical information obtained from “any
employee,” and is not limited to individuals with disabilities. See
Hampton v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A00132 (Apr. 13,
2000). Although not all medically-related information falls within this
provision, documentation or information of an individual's diagnosis
or symptoms is medical information that must be treated as confidential
except in those circumstances described in 29 C.F.R. Part 1630. See Id.;
see also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities
Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, No. 915.002, Question 15 (Mar. 25,
1997). Accordingly, we find that regarding claim (2), Complainant has
alleged a claim of unlawful medical disclosure which states a claim and
dismissal of the complaint by the Agency was not appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED
in part. Claim 2 is hereby REMANDED to the Agency for further processing
in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER (E0610)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claim (claim 2) in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 et seq. The Agency shall acknowledge
to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty
(30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency
shall issue to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also
shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred
fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant
requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a
final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant's request.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The
Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation,
and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If
the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to
the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If
the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (T0610)
This decision affirms the Agency's final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a
portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion
of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion
of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after
one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your
complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such
time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
April 12, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120111118
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111118