0120101482
06-20-2012
Denise J. Raipe, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Denise J. Raipe,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120101482
Agency No. 1G-772-0010-09
DECISION
On February 22, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's January 15, 2010, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a General Clerk, PS-06, at the Agency's North Houston Processing and Distribution Center in Houston, Texas. On May 4, 2009, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, since December 17, 2008, management subjected her to a hostile work environment including, but not limited to: denying her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave requests; flagging her in the attendance system to submit medical documentation; not providing copies of her leave slips; talking about her and treating her in a demeaning manner; singling her out and blackballing her; treating her differently than co-workers; giving her a pre-disciplinary interview and subsequently issuing her a Letter of Warning (LOW), dated April 7, 2009, for failure to follow instructions.1
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant reiterates her contention that since 2001, management has conspired to harass her into having "a nervous breakdown, heart attack, quit or fire [her] after 28 1/2 years of almost perfect service and loyalty." She further contends that the testimony of management officials is not worthy of belief, and raises numerous issues that were the subject of prior complaints, or are otherwise outside the scope of the instant complaint.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim absent direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Cmty Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reason proffered by the Agency was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
We find that, assuming Complainant has established her prima facie cases of reprisal discrimination, the Agency has put forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, with respect to the pre-disciplinary interview and LOW, the record shows that Complainant's supervisor (S1) stated that she issued the discipline when, on March 24, 2009, Complainant failed to follow her instructions to finish assisting a co-worker with her travel voucher and return to her assigned duties. S1 also stated that she flagged Complainant's attendance in the system because Complainant was on a detail and S1 needed to remind herself to discuss Complainant's numerous absences with her upon her return. The record shows that following the discussion, the flag was subsequently removed and no record of it remained in the system. We find that Complainant has proffered no persuasive evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could infer a retaliatory motive. We also find that the record contains no evidence to support Complainant's allegations that she was denied FMLA leave or that she was denied copies of her leave slips.
With respect to Complainant's contention that the actions alleged created a hostile work environment we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by retaliatory animus. See Oakley v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). Further, we note that the majority of Complainant's allegations, even taken as true, amount only to long-standing interpersonal conflicts or issues with the supervisory styles of management officials and do not rise to the level of actionable harassment.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
June 20, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record show that Complainant previously filed a formal complaint, dated December 16, 2008, alleging that the Agency subjected her to retaliatory harassment. Accordingly, with respect to the instant complaint, the Agency dismissed any claims of harassment prior to December 17, 2008. We concur with the Agency's dismissal.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120101482
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120101482