01975107
03-10-1999
Alma D. Barrett-Roberson, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Mid-Western Area),) Agency.
Alma D. Barrett-Roberson v. United States Postal Service
01975107
March 10, 1999
Alma D. Barrett-Roberson, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01975107
) Agency No. 1I-531-1081-94
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 260-97-9036X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Great Lakes/Mid-Western Area),)
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the final decision of the United States Postal
Service (agency), concerning her complaint alleging that the agency
discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. and Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.
The appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions
of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
Appellant filed a formal complaint alleging that the agency discriminated
against her on the bases of her race (Black), reprisal (prior EEO
activity), and physical disability (pituitary gland tumor and effects
of related medication) when, on December 6, she was not hired because
of an incident which took place on November 11, 1990, when appellant
was employed with the agency and subsequently terminated from her
position as a casual employee. Following the agency's investigation of
her complaint, appellant requested a hearing with an EEOC administrative
judge (AJ). Thereafter, the AJ followed appropriate procedure for issuing
a recommended decision without a hearing. Pursuant to EEOC regulations,
the AJ provided notice to the parties and granted each 15 days to respond.
Neither party responded. Subsequently, on May 8, 1997, the AJ issued
a recommended decision without a hearing finding no discrimination.
The agency subsequently adopted the AJ's recommended decision in a final
agency decision (FAD) dated May 21, 1997.
In her recommended decision, the AJ found that appellant failed to
establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination on
any basis alleged because she failed to show that she was subjected to
less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee and failed
to present any other evidence to support an inference of discrimination.
In addition, the AJ concluded that appellant failed to prove a prima
facie case of reprisal discrimination because there was no evidence of
a causal connection between a prior complaint and the agency failure to
rehire appellant in December 1993. Although appellant alleged that she
filed an EEOC complaint in 1991 after the agency initially terminated her
there was no record of any previous complaints in the file and appellant
failed to provide any other proof of a prior complaint. Finally, the
AJ concluded that appellant failed to prove that she was a qualified
person with a disability as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. The AJ
further noted that even if appellant had established a prima facie case
of discrimination, the agency rebutted any inference of discrimination
by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not rehiring
appellant. Furthermore, the AJ concluded that there was no evidence
that the agency acted with a discriminatory animus.
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds
that the AJ's recommended decision properly analyzed appellant's complaint
as a disparate treatment claim. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); see also Texas Department of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981); Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493,
500 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (applying the McDonnell Douglas standard to reprisal
cases); and Oberg v. Secretary of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05890451
(July 20, 1989) (applying the McDonnell Douglas standard to disability
discrimination based on disparate treatment). The Commission concludes
that, in all material respects, the AJ accurately set forth the facts
giving rise to the complaint and the law applicable to the case.
We further find that the AJ correctly determined that appellant failed
to establish a prima facie case on any bases alleged in her complaint.
On appeal, appellant argues that the agency discriminated against her in
1990 when it terminated her for an incident that was caused by a medical
condition. However, we find that appellant's 1990 termination and the
circumstances surrounding such is not properly before the Commission
at this time. We further find that appellant offered no additional
persuasive evidence in support of her claim on appeal. Therefore, we
discern no legal basis to reverse the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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 10, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations