01980389
03-18-1999
Venita Williams, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Venita Williams v. United States Postal Service
01980389
March 18, 1999
Venita Williams, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01980389
) Agency No. 1D-401-1011-96
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 240-97-5039X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On October 10, 1997, Venita Williams (hereinafter referred to as
appellant) filed a timely appeal from the September 10, 1997 final
decision of the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred to as
the agency) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. Appellant received the final agency decision
on September 15, 1997. Accordingly, the appeal is timely filed (see
29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)) and is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order
No. 960, as amended. For the reasons that follow, the agency's decision
is VACATED.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Administrative Judge
properly issued a Recommended Decision without a hearing.
BACKGROUND
Appellant filed a formal complaint on March 12, 1996, alleging that the
agency discriminated against her on the bases of race/color (black),
sex, and reprisal for prior EEO activity when she received a low rating
as a temporary supervisor ("204(b)"). Following an investigation,
appellant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). On July 17, 1997, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding that summary judgment was appropriate and that the agency did
not discriminate against appellant. In its final agency decision (FAD),
the agency adopted the AJ's decision.
Appellant complained that her immediate supervisor (S1) gave her a
rating of "basic" on the supervisory evaluation form when she acted
as a 204(b) supervisor.<1> She cited a comparative employee (white,
male) (E1) to whom S1, acting in place of E1's absent supervisor, gave a
"superior" rating. The AJ found that summary judgment was appropriate,
having concluded that the comparative evidence failed to create a genuine
issue of material fact. The AJ found that appellant was not similarly
situated to E1, since they received the ratings for different jobs, and
that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
based on race and sex. With regard to appellant's claim based on
reprisal, the AJ found that appellant failed to show a nexus between
appellant's prior EEO activity and the low rating.
The record shows that appellant and E1 both worked as mail processors at
the same facility and were rated by S1 in mid-November 1995. Appellant
sought the position of Supervisor at the Remote Encoding Center, in
Bowling Green, Kentucky, and E1 applied for a supervisory position in
processing and distribution at the Louisville General Mail Facility;
both positions were rated as EAS-16.
In her appeal, appellant describes her attempts to obtain entry into
supervisory positions. She criticizes S1's evaluation of her performance
but notes that S1 had rated her highly for a non-supervisory position.
She also objects to the AJ's summary decision and contends that a genuine
issue of material fact remained but does not elaborate further or state
what facts she believed remained in contention.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Initially we address the AJ's decision to issue a Recommended Decision
without a hearing. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a
decision without a hearing when s/he concludes that there are no facts
in genuine dispute. 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(e)(3). In an administrative
proceeding under Title VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after
adequate investigation, appellant has failed to establish the essential
elements of his/her case, i.e., a prima facie case or evidence sufficient
to raise an inference of discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated
Coin Caters Corp., 116 S.Ct. 1307 (1996); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp., EEOC Notice No. 915.002,
n. 4 (September 18, 1996).
The AJ determined that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case
based on her conclusion that appellant was not similarly situated to
E1 since "the ratings in question [were] for two different supervisory
positions." R.D. p. 4. We disagree with the AJ's determination that
summary judgment was appropriate in this matter. In determining whether
appellant was similarly situated to E1, the identification of the jobs
applied for are relevant only insofar as they were both entry-level
supervisory positions and that S1 utilized the same rating form in his
evaluations of appellant and E1. To determine whether appellant and
E1 are similarly situated, we examine their extant employment. Here,
we note that both worked as mail processors and both were rated by S1
for entry-level supervisory positions while working in 204(b) positions.
We find that these similarities are sufficient to show that they are
similarly situated. Thus, we find that appellant has established a prima
facie case based on race/color and sex. McDonnell Douglas Corporation
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Similarly, with regard to her claim based on reprisal, we find that
appellant established a prima facie case. Hochstadt v. Worcester
Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324
(D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). The requisite causal
connection may be shown by evidence that the adverse action followed the
protected activity within such a period of time and in such a manner
that a reprisal motive is inferred. Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
622 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1980). Here, appellant has shown that she has
engaged in recent EEO activity with regard to S1, and we find that she
has raised an inference of discrimination.
Since appellant has raised inferences of discrimination, the burden
shifts to the agency to articulate its reasons for its actions and a
determination of whether appellant has demonstrated discrimination.
We find therefore that appellant has produced evidence sufficient to
demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact requiring
resolution by the fact-finder. Consequently, we find that the AJ erred
in determining that summary judgment was appropriate in this matter.
For the above reasons, this matter is remanded to the agency for a
hearing before an AJ on all bases and issues herein.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision is VACATED. The agency is directed
to comply with the Order, below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to process this matter as follows, unless it is
otherwise resolved between the parties. Within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall request
the appointment of an Administrative Judge to conduct a hearing in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.109 et seq. The agency shall transmit
a copy of this decision with its request. A copy of this request shall
be sent to the appellant.
A copy of the agency's request must be sent to the Compliance Officer
as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of
the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503 (a). The appellant also has the right
to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503 (g). Alternatively,
the appellant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File
A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to
the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1993). If the
appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.
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 (R0993)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court. 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. In the alternative,
you may file a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR
DAYS of the date you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your
appeal with the Commission. 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.
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 18, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
1The rating form listed the qualifications of the job applied for and
required the supervisor to check off a summary rating, such as "superior"
or "basic," and provide a narrative summary of the employee's
qualifications measured against the duties of the position applied for.