01994041
09-19-2001
Prethenia Jones, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Prethenia Jones v. United States Postal Service
01994041
09-19-01
.
Prethenia Jones,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01994041
Agency No. 4-H-330-0599-97
DECISION
Prethenia Jones (complainant) filed an appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final agency decision
(FAD) received March 27, 1999, concerning her complaint alleging that
she was discriminated against on the bases of her race (Black), sex
(female) and reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e
et seq. (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). The appeal was postmarked April 22, 1999.
Accordingly, the appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented on appeal is whether complainant was discriminated
against on the above mentioned bases when she received a letter of
warning for unsatisfactory performance.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Letter Carrier, PS-5, at the agency's Westside Station facility
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On June 14, 1997, a daily case inspection
was conducted on complainant's route assignment. Management indicated
that during the inspection of complainant's letter case, a first class
postcard was found behind the letter dividers by complainant's co-worker,
who then brought the matter to management's attention. The matter was
discussed with complainant during a disciplinary interview. At that time
complainant indicated that she believed that the letter was planted by
the Customer Service Manager (RMO). In response, management indicated
that it had previously held discussions with complainant regarding
the �clean letter case� policy. Complainant was issued a Letter of
Warning for Unsatisfactory Performance on July 7, 1997.<1> Believing
she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling
and subsequently filed a formal complaint on November 5, 1997. 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 failed to establish a
prima facie case of race or sex discrimination because while she named
two comparators (C-1 and C-2) she provided no evidence to show that
these or other similarly situated employees were treated more favorably
by her supervisor. Moreover, the agency indicated that of the two
named comparators, C-1, a white male, had also previously received a
letter of warning for unsatisfactory performance; C-2, a black male,
had not been disciplined, but there was no indication in his record
that he had performed unsatisfactorily. The agency also found that
complainant failed to prove a causal connection between her prior EEO
activity and the Letter of Warning in that despite complainant's claim
to the contrary, the RMO denied any knowledge of her prior EEO activity.
In the alternative, the agency also found that there was nothing in the
record to indicate that complainant would not have received the Letter of
Warning, despite her actions which resulted in the delay of mail, if she
had not previously engaged in EEO activity. Further, the agency found
that complainant failed to show that but for her previous EEO activity,
she would not have been subject to the adverse action, in that it was
complainant's responsibility to ensure that all mail distributed is pulled
and properly disposed of. Complainant offered no contentions on appeal.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for
Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal
cases), the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination because of
complainant's two identified comparators, C-1 was similarly disciplined
after performing unsatisfactorily, whereas C-2 had not engaged in conduct
that warranted discipline. Further, complainant failed to establish that
there was a causal nexus between her prior EEO activity and the alleged
adverse action. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the RMO denied
knowledge of complainant's prior activity and complainant introduced
no evidence to establish that the agency's proffered explanation was
unworthy of belief.
The Commission further 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. In reaching this conclusion,
we note that complainant adduced no evidence to show that she would not
have been disciplined for leaving the postcard in her letter case had
she not engaged in prior EEO activity.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM 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
_____09-19-01_________________________
Date
1After a Step 2 Grievance, the Letter of Warning was reduced to an
official discussion.