01972517
03-17-1999
Layne Arnold, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region),) Agency.
Layne Arnold v. United States Postal Service
01972517
March 17, 1999
Layne Arnold, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01972517
v. ) Agency No. 4C-1667-93
) Hearing No. 220-96-5257X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region),)
Agency. )
)
)
DECISION
Appellant filed an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD) concerning
her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination on the basis of sex (female) and race (Black), in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Appellant alleges she was discriminated
against when she was denied additional time to qualify for the position
of MPLSM transitional clerk in January 1993. The appeal is accepted
in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons,
the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
Appellant filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on May 11,
1993, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her as
referenced above. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant
requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued
a Recommended Decision (RD) finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that appellant established a prima facie case of race
and sex discrimination because similarly situated employees (3 Black
males, 1 White female, and 1 White male) not in her protected classes,
received additional hours of dexterity training. The AJ then concluded
that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions. Namely, the District Manager of Human Resources
(Responsible Official, RO) testified that shortly after assuming his
position in November 1992, it was brought to his attention that employees
had been granted additional time to qualify on the dexterity training
for the LSM. The RO further testified that he advised all managers to
stop this practice. Upon receiving appellant's request for additional
training in January 1993, the RO determined that appellant had received an
hour of additional training time in February 1992 and failed to qualify.
The RO testified that he denied appellant's request and further stated
that no one had been granted additional dexterity training since he
became district manager.
The AJ found that appellant did not establish pretext. Appellant contends
she never trained the extra hour indicated on her training record as
evidenced by the lack of a training code (781) clock ring on February
28, 1992. However, the AJ concluded that the lack of a training code
clock ring did not prove that appellant did not receive the additional
hour of training because dexterity training took place off the clock.
Therefore, a 781 ring is not utilized. The AJ further noted that a review
of the training records of several of the comparison employees indicated
that the additional time received to train was not for dexterity, but
rather for LSM application/incoming prime. Finally, the AJ found that
appellant failed to present any evidence to show that the RO authorized
additional dexterity training time to any employee.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We note that appellant failed to
present evidence showing that any of the RO's actions were motivated
by discriminatory animus toward appellant's sex and/or race. Even if
appellant's contentions on appeal are correct, stating that three Black
male employees received dexterity training and not LSM application
training as asserted in the testimony of the Senior Training Specialist,
this information alone would not support appellant's contentions that the
RO was more likely motivated by a discriminatory animus. See St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993). Additionally, as noted
by the AJ, appellant provided no evidence during the hearing and on
appeal showing that the RO authorized additional dexterity training
for any employee. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
findings of no discrimination which were based on a detailed assessment
of the record. Accordingly, after a careful review of the record,
including appellant's contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
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 the
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 the 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 the 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 the 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:
March 17, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations