01A01489
07-29-2002
Patricia H. Richardson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Patricia H. Richardson v. United States Postal Service
01A01489
07-29-02
.
Patricia H. Richardson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A01489
Agency No. 1F-942-0043-97
Hearing No. 370-98-2654X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 order.
The record reveals that complainant filed a formal EEO complaint, on
December 1, 1997, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her
on the bases of race (Black), disability (dysthymia-depressive neuroses),
age (D.O.B. June 12, 1943), and reprisal for prior EEO activity when,
on June 20, 1997, she was issued a Removal Notice for being AWOL.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
On April 16, 1990, complainant, a Machine Clerk at the agency's
San Francisco Bulk Mail Center facility, suffered an emotional
breakdown while at work when she was not allowed to leave work early.
Subsequently, she was found eligible for worker's compensation benefits
and placed on leave. By letter dated November 2, 1995, complainant
was notified that her benefits were being terminated and that she was
expected to apply for re-employment within thirty days of her benefits
being terminated. By letter dated December 4, 1995, the Plant Manager,
A-1, notified complainant that she should return to work by December 11,
1995, and submit medical documentation clearing her to return to work.
Complainant was also informed that if she failed to report to work or
submit medical documentation to substantiate any failure to report to
work, she would be placed in an AWOL status and action to remove her might
be initiated. Complainant responded by letter dated December 8, 1995,
indicating that she was unable to return to work. Complainant referred to
an October 6, 1995 letter from her physician to the Department of Labor
stating that she was unable to work.<1> Complainant did not report to
work, nor did she provide the requested medical documentation.
On January 2, 1996, A-2, Acting Manager of Distribution Operations, sent
a letter to complainant advising her that her continued absence would
be considered AWOL unless she provided medical documentation supporting
her absence within five days. A-2 also indicated that removal was an
option if complainant failed to comply. Complainant responded, by letter
dated January 9, 1996, stating that she was not AWOL since she had not
been medically cleared to return to work and she was in the process of
appealing the termination of her benefits. On January 24, 1996, A-2
reminded complainant that he was still awaiting her medical documentation.
On February 23, 1996, complainant submitted forms requesting leave from
December 11, 1995 to March 1, 1996, along with a letter requesting that
A-2 contact her doctor with any further requests for medical information.
On June 20, 1997, A-2 issued a Notice of Proposed Removal stating that
complainant would be removed, on July 26, 1997, because she had been
AWOL since December 11, 1995, and had not provided acceptable medical
documentation explaining why she was absent.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination. The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that complainant
did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated
reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination and retaliation.
In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found that complainant was put
on notice that if she did not return to work or provide acceptable
documentation to support her extended absence she would be removed
from the agency. The AJ found no evidence that the decision to remove
complainant was motivated in any way by her race, age, disability or
prior EEO activity.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant argued, in pertinent part, that the AJ erred in granting
summary judgment. The agency makes no new contentions on appeal.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant of
summary judgment in this case was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of
material fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized
the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes.<2>
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
____07-29-02______________
Date
1Complainant stated that, if the October 6, 1995 letter had been read,
A-1 �would realize that [her] conditions have not changed and that
[she was] still unable to return to work . . . .�
2In reaching the above decision, we assumed, for analytical purposes only,
that complainant was an individual with a disability as alleged.