Marie Love-Jackson, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 31, 2005
01a50955 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2005)

01a50955

03-31-2005

Marie Love-Jackson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Marie Love-Jackson v. United States Postal Service

01A50955

March 31, 2005

.

Marie Love-Jackson,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A50955

Agency No. 1-H-343-0001-02

Hearing No. 150-2003-08062X

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination. According to the

agency's decision, complainant alleges discrimination on the bases of race

(African-American), color (black), and sex (female) when, on December 31,

2001, complainant was released from her position as a casual employee

and not retained.

Following a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a

decision on August 18, 2004, finding that complainant had not been

discriminated against. Specifically, the AJ found that the agency

presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, which

complainant failed to rebut.

On September 29, 2004, the agency issued a decision finding no

discrimination. The agency fully implemented the AJ's decision.

Thereafter, complainant filed the instant appeal.

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). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a

de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

We find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

for the nonselection. The AJ noted that the supervisors recommended

those employees they had the most contact with, those they personally

observed most, and those who stood out as outstanding or had special

skills. Since complainant was mostly supervised by Supervisor A, who

was currently no longer employed with the agency, the AJ said that it

was perhaps unfortunate and to complainant's disadvantage (as well as

to the other employees under Supervisor A) that Supervisor A left the

agency's employment prior to the recommendation process, in August 2001.

The AJ commented that after Supervisor A's departure complainant worked

for several supervisors who either did not have much contact with her

and/or did not observe any outstanding skills or abilities of complainant

in the little time complainant worked for them. The AJ indicated that

it was undisputed that none of the supervisors who knew complainant

or worked with complainant the most recommended her. The AJ expressed

that it was also undisputed that all of the supervisors who worked with

complainant recommended many females and black, African-Americans on

their list. The AJ mentioned that it was also undisputed that, out of

the 250 employees, many Caucasians and males were also not recommended

and/or selected.

Complainant has failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for the selection decision. Furthermore, complainant has failed to

show that her qualifications for the position as a casual employee were

plainly superior to the selectees' qualifications or that the agency's

action was motivated by discrimination. Moreover, complainant has failed

to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was discriminated

against on the bases of race, color, or sex.

The agency's decision finding no discrimination 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

March 31, 2005

__________________

Date