0120081904
08-05-2008
Rhonda M. Edwards, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rhonda M. Edwards,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081904
Hearing No. 461-2007-00108X
Agency No. 1G-701-0019-07
DECISION
On March 18, 2008, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's February
11, 2008 final decision 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., 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 deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the agency's final decision.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether complainant was subjected to discrimination
based on race, national origin, sex, age, and disability when her duty
hours and scheduled days were changed and her requests for a temporary
change of schedule were denied.
BACKGROUND
During the relevant time, complainant was a limited-duty employee1 working
at the agency's St. Rose Annex in New Orleans. Her duty hours were
from 3:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. with Saturday/Sunday as her days off.
The St. Rose Annex, however, was closed in January 2007 and employees
were transferred to the New Orleans Main Office.
Following the transfer to the Main Office, complainant was provided with
a modified job that changed her hours. Complainant was assigned to work
from 7:45 p.m. - 11:45 p.m., with Monday/Tuesday as her days off.2
On May 5, 2008 complainant requested a temporary change, for May 12
through June 12, to push back her duty hours by one hour. Her request
was denied. Similarly, on May 12, 2007, complainant requested a change
for May 19 through June 19, which was also denied.
Believing that her change in duty hours and days off, as well as the
denied requests for a temporary change in duty hours, were discriminatory,
complainant contacted the EEO office. Informal efforts to resolve
complainant's concerns were unsuccessful. Subsequently, complainant
filed a formal complaint based on race, national origin, sex, age and
disability. The agency framed the claims as follows:
(1) on February 12, 2007, complainant's duty hours were changed from
3:00 p.m. - 11:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. - 11:45 p.m., and her off days were
changed from Saturday/Sunday to Monday/ Tuesday.
(2) On May 5 & 12, 2007, complainant's request for a change of schedule
was denied; and,
(3) On May 10, 2007, complainant was given a letter by her supervisor
stating that she had failed to provide medical evidence of her ability
to perform her bid job.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently,
the agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
The decision concluded that complainant failed to prove that she was
subjected to discrimination as alleged.
Preliminarily, the agency determined that complainant failed to present a
prima facie case on any of the bases she raised. Even assuming arguendo
that complainant did establish a prima facie case, the agency concluded
that management officials proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions.
According to the agency, when the St. Rose Annex was closed, and employees
were moved to the Main Office, those with on-the-job injuries were offered
modified assignments. They were given different reporting times and days
off to maintain facility efficiency. The agency further explained that
complainant failed to provide medical documentation, regarding her ability
to perform the bid job she was awarded in October 2006. Consequently,
under agency policy, complainant was disqualified from the bid position.
With respect to complainant's request for a temporary schedule change,
the agency stated that they were denied based on the agency's operational
needs.
Regarding complainant's assertions that other particular employees were
not given different duty hours and off days, the agency found that the
cited individuals were not similarly situated. For example, one of the
individuals did not have the same physical limitations as complainant.
Another had a different set of skills. The agency concluded that
complainant failed to present evidence of pretext. The record did not
establish that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Based on a review of the record, the Commission agrees that complainant
has not established that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The record does not show that complainant's duty hours and days off were
changed due to her race, national origin, sex, age and/or disability.
Many other limited-duty employees who were moved from the St. Rose Annex
to the Main Office in New Orleans also experience a change in duty hours,
off-days or both. Moreover, the record shows that numerous employees,
in addition to complainant, were notified that due to their failure to
provide medical evidence they were disqualified from their awarded bid
position. Regarding the complainant's requests for a temporary change
to her duty hours, again the Commission finds no evidence supporting
complainant's belief that the denials were discriminatory.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the agency's
decision finding no discrimination.
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
August 5, 2008
Date
1 She started her employment with the agency in 1985, and in November
2003 she suffered an on-the-job back injury.
2 According to the agency, for the reduction in 4 hours per day
complainant submitted a claim for compensation to the Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs.
??
??
??
??
2
0120081904
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120081904