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