01973241
02-22-1999
Joyce Chui, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Areas), Agency.
Joyce Chui v. United States Postal Service
01973241
February 22, 1999
Joyce Chui, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. #01973241
) Agency No. 1F-941-1122-94
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 370-96-X2412
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western Areas), )
Agency. )
________________________________)
DECISION
On March 8, 1997, Joyce Chui (hereinafter referred to as the appellant),
filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Commission) from the final decision of the United States Postal Service,
(hereinafter referred to as the agency) concerning her allegation that the
agency violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged that the
agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Asian), national
origin (Chinese-American), and sex (female - pregnancy) when, in May 1994,
she was denied training for the position of transitional employee (TE).
This appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance with EEOC Order
No. 960.001.
Following an investigation of this complaint, appellant requested
an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ). On January 3, 1997,
following a hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) finding
no discrimination.
The AJ found that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of
race, national origin, and sex discrimination. Assuming that appellant
had established a prima facie case of race, national origin, and sex
discrimination, the AJ found that appellant failed to establish that the
agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying her training
for the TE position was pretextual.
The AJ found that the agency was under a "good faith belief" when
scheduling participants for the TE training, that appellant would not be
available because, as a result of her pregnancy, her physician required
that she rest at home for two weeks. Furthermore, the AJ found that the
agency demonstrated a genuine affection for appellant, and had a sincere
desire to further her career advancement within the agency. The agency
very much wanted appellant to attend the May 1994 training for TE's.
Moreover, the AJ determined that absent evidence that the agency would
have treated a non-pregnant employee with medical information comparable
to appellant's differently, the agency's decision not to schedule
appellant for TE training was not discriminatory.
Also, the AJ found that the agency's requirement that appellant take
the English skills exams (exams) in 1995 (which she passed), failed
to show "anti-Chinese animus". The AJ found that appellant failed to
show national origin discrimination: (1) in light of the fact that the
agency never asserted that appellant was not provided training because
of her accent or English skills; (2) appellant took the English exams
one year after the events at issue, and (3) the agency selected another
Chinese-American employee for the TE training.
On February 13, 1997, the agency issued a final decision, adopting
the AJ's finding of no discrimination. It is from this decision that
appellant now appeals.
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds
that the AJ's RD sets forth the relevant facts, and properly analyzes the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws applicable to appellant's
complaint as a disparate treatment claim. Therefore, the Commission
discerns no basis to disturb the agency's finding of no discrimination.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
February 22, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations