01986577
03-07-2000
Marie C. Grier, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Marie C. Grier v. United States Postal Service
01986577
March 7, 2000
Marie C. Grier, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986577
v. ) Agency No. 1D-281-0086-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and religion (Christian)
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> For the reasons stated herein, the agency's
FAD is affirmed.
According to the record, complainant was a Mail-handler Relief Driver
at a North Carolina facility of the agency. Believing she was a victim
of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently,
filed a complaint alleging that the agency discriminated against her
when the Acting Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO) clocked her
out from duty prior to her normal end of duty time.<2>
The MDO stated that he "clocked out" complainant because she was
insubordinate when he asked her why she was pulling mail one container
at a time rather than the required three containers at a time and then
directed her to pull the mail correctly. The MDO further indicated that
race, sex, nor religion were factors in his action.
Complainant stated that the MDO's action was discriminatory because she
was the only African American who was ordered to pull the mail correctly
because the other African Americans did so through their own initiative;
because the MDO spoke to her in a manner different from the way he would
speak to a male in the same scenario; and because the MDO, in acting as
he did, knowingly went against her religious values. Complainant added
that several coworkers witnessed a male Mail-handler pulling mail one
container at a time on the same shift and day as complainant, however,
he was not "clocked out" by the MDO.
At the conclusion of the complaint's investigation, the agency notified
complainant of her right to a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge
or an immediate FAD without a hearing. Complainant did not indicate
a preference so the agency issued a FAD, which found no discrimination
based on race, sex, or religion. This appeal followed.
When a complainant relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an
agency's discriminatory intent or motive, there is a three step,
burden-shifting process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). The initial burden is on the complainant to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. The burden then shifts to
the agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its challenged action. Id. If the agency is successful, the complainant
must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency is merely pretext
for its discrimination. Id. at 804.
Because the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its action, we may proceed directly to determining whether complainant
satisfied her burden for showing pretext. Haas v. Department of Commerce,
EEOC Request No. 05970837 (July 7, 1999)(citing U.S. Postal Service
Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983)). Complainant may do this
in one of two ways, either directly, by showing that a discriminatory
reason more likely motivated the agency, or indirectly, by showing that
the agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Texas Dep't
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Essentially,
the fact finder must be persuaded by the complainant that the agency's
articulated reason was false and that its real reason was discrimination.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).
Complainant did not establish that similarly-situated employees outside of
her protected classes were treated more favorably in like circumstances
or that an inference of discrimination could be drawn from the evidence.
Behar v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940787 (June 2, 1995);
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996).
In addition, complainant's mere assertions are insufficient to establish
pretext.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to present evidence that
more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions
were a pretext for discrimination. 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, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no discrimination based on
race, sex, or religion.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
March 7, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2Complainant indicated three issues on her formal complaint dated October
21, 1997. The agency dismissed two issues in a partial decision dated
April 23, 1998. The issue addressed herein is the only one that was
accepted for investigation.