01A05740
08-27-2002
Natalie Blodgett, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Natalie Blodgett v. United States Postal Service
01A05740
08-27-02
.
Natalie Blodgett,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A05740
Agency Nos. 4F-926-0023-98 & 4F-926-0222-98
Hearing Nos. 340-98-4206X & 340-99-3301X
DECISION
On August 30, 2000, Natalie Blodgett (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Based upon
a review of the record, and for the reasons stated herein, it is the
decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final order.
The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that she was discriminated against on the bases of her
race (Caucasian), color (White), national origin (North American), sex
(female), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when she was not reinstated
as a Mail Handler at the agency's Santa Ana Post Office between August
1997 and September 1998.
Complainant filed two formal complaints raising the above referenced
claims of discrimination. The agency accepted complainant's complaints
for processing, and conducted an investigation with regard to the
matter at issue, after which complainant requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge (AJ). After providing the parties with
the appropriate notice, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding that complainant was not subject to discrimination as alleged.
The AJ found that, even assuming, arguendo, that complainant was able
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the bases
alleged, the agency articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for its action. Specifically, complainant was not reinstated based
on her prior unsatisfactory attendance record, and unstable work
history.<1> Further, the agency was unable to observe or evaluate
complainant first-hand in the workplace during her two most recent years
of employment, in part due to complainant's absences. In response to
complainant's reprisal claim, the AJ found that while the agency was
aware of her prior EEO activity, the weight of the evidence showed
that it was her work history, and not retaliation that which caused
the agency to deny complainant's reinstatement request. The AJ also
found that while the agency initially failed to respond to complainant's
letters of inquiry about reinstatement, this mistake in procedure was
not sufficient in and of itself to establish pretext.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the AJ
correctly determined that complainant was not subject to discrimination
with regard to the matter at issue. The record shows that even assuming
that complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination on
the bases alleged, she failed to show that the agency's stated reason
for its action was pretextual. We also note that no evidence in the
record showed that the comparators rehired by the agency with leave
histories similar to the complainant were rehired by the Acting Senior
Plant Manager who denied her request for reinstatement. Therefore,
complainant failed in her burden to show that she was treated differently
because of her pregnancy and its related complications. Additionally,
complainant adduced no evidence to show that the newly hired employees
had reinstatement rights or leave records comparable to her own.
The Commission finds no evidence in the record to show that the action
in question was related to complainant's protected bases. On appeal,
complainant contended, in part, that the AJ misidentified one of her
former supervisors. However, a review of the record indicates that
this individual signed off on her PS 3972 Leave Summary as her reviewing
supervisor in 1997. AJ Exhibit 5. Further, complainant did not show that
there were material facts in dispute regarding the Agency's articulated
reasons for its action. Therefore, after a careful review of the record,
including complainant's contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the AJ's finding
of no discrimination.
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
____08-27-02______________
Date
1Due to an automobile accident, and later health-related complications
arising from and continuing after her pregnancy, complainant was either
tardy or absent for approximately 885 hours in 1995, an additional
1,073 in 1996, and 536 hours in 1997.