01a00040
03-08-2000
Vera F. Sturgis, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Vera F. Sturgis, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A00040
) Agency Nos. 1-D-221-1041-96
William J. Henderson, ) 1-D-221-1060-96
Postmaster General, ) Hearing Nos. 100-97-7599X
United States Postal Service, ) 100-98-7395X
Agency. )
________________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's September 15, 1999 decision
finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant based
on complainant's sex (female), race (Black), and retaliation for prior
protected activity, was proper.<1>
The agency defined the complaints as alleging:
Complainant was discriminated against from October 15, 1995 to November
29, 1995, on the basis of retaliation for prior EEO activity, when she
was denied upward mobility training, details, and acting supervisory
positions.
Complainant was discriminated against from November 30, 1995 to January
11, 1996, on the bases of sex, race, and in retaliation for prior EEO
activity, when she was denied upward mobility training, details, and
acting supervisory positions.
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.
An administrative judge issued a decision without holding a hearing.
The Commission finds that the material facts were not in dispute and
that the administrative judge properly issued a decision without holding
a hearing. The administrative judge concluded that complainant failed
to show that she was discriminated against. In the agency's September
15, 1999 decision the agency concurred with the conclusions of the
administrative judge and found no discrimination.
The Commission rejects complainant's argument on appeal that the
administrative judge improperly failed to take sanctions against the
agency. The Commission finds no abuse of discretion by the administrative
judge in her processing of the matter.
The Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO A) stated in an affidavit
that he did receive complainant's October 25, 1995 letter requesting
upward mobility, details, and acting supervisor positions. MDO A stated
(regarding the time period of November 30, 1995 through January 11,
1996):
I never provided [complainant] a written denial to her letter, however,
she was not afforded the opportunities requested. I had utilized
[complainant] in the past as [an] acting supervisor and found her
performance unacceptable, and as a result, I stopped utilizing her
approximately 08/95.
MDO A stated in a separate affidavit that complainant was denied upward
mobility training for the period from October 15, 1995 to November
29, 1995, because the �[MDO A] had used her in the past and found her
unacceptable.�
The MDO B stated in an affidavit that she did not receive complainant's
October 25, 1995 letter requesting upward mobility, details, and acting
supervisor positions. MDO B stated:
I know of no upward mobility training that was available to any during
the identified period - 11/30/95 through 01/11/96. I generally, as a
rule, do not �detail� craft employees.
. . . I decided to discontinue utilizing [complainant] as an acting
supervisor because she did not have the leadership skills necessary
to effectively [manage] a group of people and get the work done.
She required constant supervision in the area of her performance as a
supervisor. It reached a point where I felt as though I had to �baby-sit�
her . . . she demonstrated no improvement in the area of supervision.
The MDO B also stated in a separate affidavit regarding the denial of
acting supervisor assignments:
[Complainant] seemed to have a problem in identifying mediocre performance
and making the necessary corrections of the employee's behavior or
work habits. I was constantly pointing things out to her for correction.
Regarding the training for the period October 15, 1995 to November 29,
1995, MDO B stated that she knew of �no upward mobility training that was
available to anyone during the identified period� and that complainant
made no such request of MDO B.
The Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The Commission agrees with
the administrative judge's finding that complainant failed to refute
the agency's statements regarding her performance problems.
After reviewing complainant's arguments on appeal and the complete record,
the Commission finds that the administrative judge correctly determined
that complainant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
the alleged decision to deny complainant upward mobility training,
details, and acting supervisory positions was motivated in any way
by prohibited discriminatory animus. Because complainant's affidavit
may indicate that complainant is alleging sex and race discrimination
(in addition to retaliation) for the period of October 15, 1995 to
November 29, 1995, the Commission has considered these additional bases
of discrimination. The Commission's decision finding no discrimination
also includes a finding of no sex and race discrimination for the time
period of October 15, 1995 to November 29, 1995.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
March 8, 2000
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________________ _________________________ Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.