01993696
02-14-2002
Jovaunda L. Brown, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.
Jovaunda L. Brown v. United States Postal Service
01993696
February 14, 2002
.
Jovaunda L. Brown,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993696
Agency Nos. 1G-754-1081-96; 1G-754-1151-96; 1G-754-0001-97
Hearing Nos. 310-97-5461X; 5462X; 5463X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> 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 complainant, a Flat Sorter Machine Operator
at the agency's North Texas Mail Processing and Distribution Center,
filed formal EEO complaints alleging that the agency had discriminated
against her on the bases of her race (African American), color (dark), sex
(female), disability (knee injury), and in reprisal for prior protected
activity arising under the above referenced statutes: when: (1) the
agency falsified portions of her Form CA-2 and she was denied workers'
compensation benefits; (2) she was denied medical treatment at the
agency's expense; and (3) on September 6, 1996, she was sent home early
and told no work was available. At the conclusion of the investigations,
complainant received copies of the investigative reports and requested
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge
consolidated the complaints and, following a hearing, issued a decision
finding no discrimination which complainant now appeals. On appeal,
complainant states that she knew she was going to lose her case because
the Administrative Judge and the agency representative were having a
personal conversation in front of her in the hearing room before her
attorney arrived.<2> She also restates arguments previously made at
the hearing.
Pursuant to 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
regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual
finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
An Administrative Judge's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo
standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
After a careful review of the record and assuming arguendo for purposes of
this decision only that complainant is an individual with a disability
within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, the Commission finds
that the Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence and that his decision referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant failed to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's actions
were in retaliation for her prior protected activity or were motivated
by discriminatory animus toward her race, color, sex, or disability.
Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the Administrative Judge's
decision, and having considered complainant's contentions on appeal
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we affirm the agency's final decision.
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
February 14, 2002
__________________
Date
1 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment.
2 An Administrative Judge must not participate in any conduct during
the hearing that presents the appearance of or actual bias in favor
of or against one of the parties. If a party or a witness accuses
the Administrative Judge of bias during the course of the hearing, the
Administrative Judge should document the allegations and the response on
the record. Complainant did not raise her accusation during the course
of the hearing. However, we have examined the record to determine whether
the Administrative Judge treated complainant and her case in an impartial
and fair manner. We conclude that, in spite of the Administrative Judge's
inappropriate conduct, he did not act with bias against complainant.