01996582
06-11-2002
Melvin M. Williams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Melvin M. Williams v. United States Postal Service
01996582
June 11, 2002
.
Melvin M. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01996582
Agency No. 1C-151-0123-98
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's
final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Clerk, PS-5 at the agency's Pittsburgh General Mail
Facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed
a formal complaint on September 13, 1998, alleging that she was
discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American), sex
(Female), disability (cervical disc disease, muscle damage), age (d/o/b
2-26-41), and reprisal for prior EEO activity<1> when:
(1) during the period June 16-23, 1998, her request for a schedule
change was denied, by the Manager, Distribution Operations, (the MDO)
as was her request for reconsideration of that denial;
her June 23, 1998 request for a 204-B acting supervisor assignment
was denied by the Senior Manager, Distribution Operations, (the SMDO)
on June 30, 1998; and
her June 25, 1998 request for a permanent schedule change was denied
on June 26, 1998, by the Injury Compensation Specialist (the ICS).
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant had not established a
prima facie case of discrimination on any of the cited bases, and that
even if she had, the agency had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory
explanations for its actions.
Complainant did not file a statement in support of her appeal. The agency
requests that we affirm its FAD.
The Commission assumes for the sake of argument that complainant has
established coverage under the relevant statutes and further, that
complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the
cited bases of race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
The Commission finds, however, that the agency has articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory explanations for its actions. See Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). With regard
to complainant's June 16, 1998, request for a schedule change, the MDO
explained that complainant had previously been granted a 30-day temporary
schedule change to address transportation problems. Complainant then
requested a further schedule change to address an issue related to the
fact that she cared for her three young grandsons, a situation which
had existed for some time. The MDO stated that he believed complainant
had time to address this issue during her previous schedule change,
and that he needed complainant to work the schedule to which she was
assigned because of the heavy volume of patchwork and repair mail for
which she was responsible. With regard to complainant's request for a
204-B assignment, the SMDO stated that she denied complainant's request
because complainant �demonstrated to me through her words and actions
that she possessed no work ethic therefore how could I believe that she
was capable of supervising others.� With regard to complainant's request
for a permanent schedule change, the SMDO stated that she, not the ICS,
denied complainant's request for a schedule change because complainant's
services were needed during the hours to which she was assigned. The ICS
noted that she had nothing to do with this decision.
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. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Complainant acknowledged that the reason for the
requested schedule change was to better accommodate her family situation.
It is noted that the comparative employee cited by complainant for this
issue requested temporary schedule changes of two days, not 30 days.
Further, although complainant mentions that she could perform 204-B
duties �with modifications,� there is no evidence that the agency
denied complainant's request on account of her restrictions. Moreover,
complainant does not address the agency's proffered explanation for denial
of such an assignment in June 1998; namely, that her work ethic was such
that the SMDO did not have confidence in her ability to supervise others.
Finally, although complainant cited a comparative who was granted 204-B
assignments during the time frame at issue, this individual was granted
such assignments by a different management official than the SMDO, and
there is no indication that the comparative's ability to carry out the
assignment was in question. Based upon the foregoing, the Commission
concludes that complainant has not adduced evidence to establish that the
agency's explanations were pretexts for discrimination. Therefore, after
a careful review of the record, arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
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
June 11, 2002
__________________
Date
1It is not apparent under which statute complainant's prior EEO activity
occurred.