01995699
02-28-2002
Linda Briggs-Beloff, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Linda Briggs-Beloff v. United States Postal Service
01995699
February 28, 2002
.
Linda Briggs-Beloff,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01995699
Agency No. 4-F-945-0256-97
Hearing No. 370-98-X2506
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint 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
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405. Complainant alleges she was discriminated against on the
bases of race (Caucasian), color (white), sex (female) and age (DOB:
October 7, 1942) when:
(1) from 1995 through August 6, 1997, she was denied promotions
by District Managers who manipulated and influenced the Executive
Administrative System (EAS) promotion selection process; and
on August 6, 1997, she was denied a detail to an EAS-17 position and
reassigned to a Supervisor, Customer Services position in Delivery.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
decision.
The record reveals that complainant that during the relevant time,
complainant was employed as an EAS-16, Supervisor, Customer Services at
the agency's Walnut Creek - Dollar Ranch Station facility in California.
The record reflects that complainant applied for two vacancies: an
EAS-17 position at the Walnut Creek post office posted in October 1996,
and an EAS-18 position at the Dollar Ranch Station posted in April 1997.
In addition, complainant applied for three details: an EAS-18 position at
the Dollar Ranch Station in 1996, an EAS-18 position at the Walnut Creek
Station in 1996, and an EAS-17 position at the Dollar Ranch Station in
August 1997. The record also reflects that complainant was not selected
for any of these positions.
On July 28, 1997, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently,
filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on October 16, 1997,
alleging that the agency had discriminated against her as referenced
above. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received
a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a
decision finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to show that her rrace, color,
sex, and/or age were factors in the selection decisions made by the
agency. The AJ found that complainant did not show by a preponderance
of the evidence that her qualifications were such as to render the
selection decisions discriminatory. The AJ also concluded that in
regard to complainant's reassignment to a delivery supervisor position
and failure to be detailed to the EAS-17 position in August 1997, that the
agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
Specifically, the AJ found that complainant was reassigned because the
agency needed a delivery supervisor and management felt that she needed
to update her delivery skills. The AJ further found that complainant
did not present any evidence beyond her mere assertions that the district
managers manipulated the selection process in an effort to discriminate
against her.
The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant contends, inter alia, that the AJ erred by misinterpreting
Postal policy, creating a recommended decision that is diametrically
opposed to the terms, conditions and privileges of complainant's
employment, and arbitrarily finding no discrimination. In response,
the agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ 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).
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether she has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
After a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ correctly
concluded that complainant failed to show that the agency engaged
in unlawful employment discrimination based on her race, color, sex
and/or age. The Commission also notes that, even assuming, arguendo,
complainant did establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the agency
articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. In
reaching this conclusion, we note that the record evidence indicates
that complainant did not request a higher level detail verbally or
through the agency's 991 database. In addition, the record also shows
that complainant was reassigned to the delivery supervisor position
because she needed to improve her delivery skills. We further find that
complainant has presented no evidence that other employees similarly
situated were treated more favorably. In point of fact, complainant
has been detailed to higher level positions on five occasions.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the AJ's decision
properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant failed to
present evidence that any of the agency's articulated reasons were
motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race, color, sex
and/or age. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions
on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence not
specifically addressed in this decision, the agency's final decision
is AFFIRMED.
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 28, 2002
__________________
Date