0120065333
05-22-2008
Patricia A. Williamson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Patricia A. Williamson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200653331
Agency No. 4E852015799
Hearing No. 350a50193x
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's August 24, 2006 final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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.
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against and harassed
her on the bases of sex (female), age (54), and reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
when:
a.. On December 29, 1998, complainant was given a fact finding by
a supervisor for wearing street clothes;
b. In November 1998, complainant's work station was relocated to
the supply room by the station manager in retaliation for participating
in an OSHA investigation;
c. On several occasions the station manager called complainant a
liar;
d. From March through July 1999, complainant was harassed by the
station manager concerning relinquishing her city carrier route;
e. In March, April, and September 1999, the station manager
threatened to send complainant to work at another facility;
f. In mid-April 1999, the station manager called complainant to
her office, waved a copy of an article that complainant had written in
the union newsletter, told her she could send her to Ahwatukee Station,
and required complainant to say "uncle" in order to retain her Address
Management Systems (AMS) duties at Sierra Adobe Station;
g. On April 16, 1999 and at least once in May, June, and July 1999,
complainant was accused of soliciting grievances;
h. On unspecified dates, the station manager accused the complainant
of being disloyal;
i. On unspecified occasions, complainant's lunch clock rings
were scrutinized daily by supervisors, one of whom threatened her with
discipline if her clock rings were in error;
j. On July 2, 1999 a supervisor gave complainant an official
discussion for "creeping overtime" off the clock;
k. On July 2, 1999, a supervisor made threatening remarks about
complainant to a shop steward;
l. In late June or early July 1999, the AMS helper was removed and
complainant was expected to complete AMS duties in six hours;
m. In July 1999, a supervisor began to require that complainant
deliver a route for 2 hours daily;
n. On August 3, 1999 another employee was assigned AMS duties after
complainant submitted documentation to be off work for job-related stress;
the employee was not required to case or carry mail;
o. In October 1999, the station manager removed complainant from
the AMS coordinator position;
p. Complainant was placed on Emergency Off-Duty status without pay
from February 7, 2000 to March 20, 2000;
q. Complainant was issued a 14-day suspension on March 20, 2000.
Complainant was a letter carrier at the Sierra Adobe Station in Phoenix,
Arizona. Because of on the job injuries, she has not performed full-time
carrier duties since 1994. Of significance to this complaint is that
complaint was a steward for her union for many years, including the time
period at issue in this case.
The record indicates a new station manager (SM) came in on September 13,
1998. Shortly thereafter, complainant wrote an article for the union
newsletter which was highly critical of the SM.
In her complaint, complainant indicated that she felt singled out for
abuse and harassment, and also claimed that two other supervisors were
part of the harassment. Complainant went out on stress-related leave
in August - September 1999. In February 2000, complainant got into
a physical confrontation with another employee which resulted in her
placement on emergency off-duty status and then a 14-day suspension.
Of note is that complainant contacted the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) in September 1999 alleging that she was being retaliated against
because of her activity as a union steward. She filed a second charge with
the NLRB in February 2000. After a hearing, the NLRB issued a decision
finding that the agency had committed certain "unfair labor practices"
based on complainant's union activity. Many of the claims raised with
the NLRB are identical to those raised in the instant complaint. The
NLRB ordered that complainant be made whole for her placement on off-duty
status, but found that the suspension was justified.
After a hearing on the instant complaint, the EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ) found that the claims did not rise to the level of harassment.
The AJ did not find that the SM's actions were motivated by discriminatory
animus - rather she found that it was complainant's union activity that
provided the impetus for the actions. The AJ noted that the SM probably
did not find out about complainant's EEO activity until September
1999, and that many of the incidents complained of occurred prior to
this time. The AJ further noted that even if complainant established a
prima facie case of retaliation, the agency provided explanations for
the actions - a great deal of furniture was moved around the station,
complainant asked to work in the supply room because she wanted a
quiet location, complainant had to do some carrier work to retain her
carrier bid, the AMS work had to be covered when complainant went out
on stress leave, and that the physical confrontation with a co-worker
was the reason for the emergency placement off duty and suspension. As
for the claim concerning the clock rings, the agency stated that there
were problems with complainant's attendance and clock rings. Complainant
was not disciplined about her clock rings. Finally, it should be noted
that the AJ took into consideration the findings of the NLRB, stating
that the conclusion regarding anti-union sentiment was reliable. The
AJ found that complainant's EEO activity made "very little, if any,
difference in the agency's actions." The AJ based her conclusion on
the fact that complainant wrote the unflattering article about SM in
the union newsletter, she did not cut back on her union activities,
and it was the unflattering article that SM waved at complainant when
allegedly threatening to remove complainant. The AJ further noted that
complainant asserted that the actions at issue herein were motivated by
her union and other non-EEO conduct.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the final agency order because
the AJ's ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not
proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
May 22, 2008
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new Commission data system, this case has been redesignated
with the above-referenced appeal and request numbers.
??
??
??
??
2
0120065333
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
6
0120065333