Joyce Chui v. United States Postal Service 01973241 February 22, 1999 Joyce Chui, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Appeal No. #01973241 ) Agency No. 1F-941-1122-94 William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 370-96-X2412 Postmaster General, ) United States Postal Service, ) (Pacific/Western Areas), ) Agency. ) ________________________________) DECISION On March 8, 1997, Joyce Chui (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) from the final decision of the United States Postal Service, (hereinafter referred to as the agency) concerning her allegation that the agency violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Chinese-American), and sex (female - pregnancy) when, in May 1994, she was denied training for the position of transitional employee (TE). This appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. Following an investigation of this complaint, appellant requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ). On January 3, 1997, following a hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) finding no discrimination. The AJ found that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of race, national origin, and sex discrimination. Assuming that appellant had established a prima facie case of race, national origin, and sex discrimination, the AJ found that appellant failed to establish that the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying her training for the TE position was pretextual. The AJ found that the agency was under a "good faith belief" when scheduling participants for the TE training, that appellant would not be available because, as a result of her pregnancy, her physician required that she rest at home for two weeks. Furthermore, the AJ found that the agency demonstrated a genuine affection for appellant, and had a sincere desire to further her career advancement within the agency. The agency very much wanted appellant to attend the May 1994 training for TE's. Moreover, the AJ determined that absent evidence that the agency would have treated a non-pregnant employee with medical information comparable to appellant's differently, the agency's decision not to schedule appellant for TE training was not discriminatory. Also, the AJ found that the agency's requirement that appellant take the English skills exams (exams) in 1995 (which she passed), failed to show "anti-Chinese animus". The AJ found that appellant failed to show national origin discrimination: (1) in light of the fact that the agency never asserted that appellant was not provided training because of her accent or English skills; (2) appellant took the English exams one year after the events at issue, and (3) the agency selected another Chinese-American employee for the TE training. On February 13, 1997, the agency issued a final decision, adopting the AJ's finding of no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellant now appeals. 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 RD sets forth the relevant facts, and properly analyzes the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws applicable to appellant's complaint as a disparate treatment claim. Therefore, the Commission discerns no basis to disturb the agency's finding of no discrimination. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision. 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. § 1614.604(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: February 22, 1999 DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director Office of Federal Operations