Andrew Thompson, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E. / S.W. Region) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 17, 2000
01981350 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 17, 2000)

01981350

03-17-2000

Andrew Thompson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E. / S.W. Region) Agency.


Andrew Thompson v. United States Postal Service

01981350

March 17, 2000

Andrew Thompson, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01981350

v. ) Agency No. 4-H-350-1231-96

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(S.E. / S.W. Region) )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (Black) and sex (male) in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>

Complainant alleges he was discriminated against on May 7, 1996, when

he was placed off the clock. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's decision.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a Letter Carrier at the agency's Sheffield, Alabama

Postal Facility. Complainant's immediate supervisor was supervisor A,

Customer Services, EAS-16. Complainant's second-line supervisor was the

Postmaster, EAS-20. Complainant alleged that on May 7th, he clocked

on, checked his vehicle and began processing his First Class letters.

He stated that he had stopped by supervisor A's desk and got a count.

Complainant further stated that supervisor A came over to his letter case

and asked complainant what was on top of it. Complainant testified that

he told supervisor A that there was mail on top of the letter case which

he did not place there. Complainant further testified that supervisor

A later came back to his letter case with two change-of-address cards;

questioned complainant about them; returned to his office; and began to

stare at complainant while writing something. Complainant stated that

supervisor A returned once more to his letter case. Complainant further

stated that he asked supervisor A if something was wrong, but that

supervisor A instructed him to continue working. Complainant declared

that supervisor A then left, but returned to his letter case for a third

time and asked if he had a problem. Complainant stated that his response

was that he was working. Complainant further stated that supervisor

A then began to stand there watching him work. Complainant testified

that not long afterwards, supervisor A approached him again and this

time indicated that the Postmaster wanted to talk to him. Complainant

further testified that he eventually went to the Postmaster's office,

and that supervisor A told the Postmaster that he felt threatened by him.

Complainant stated that the Postmaster then told him to "hit the clock"

and return to work the next day. Complainant further stated that he

clocked-out and peacefully left the facility. Complainant cited a White

male whom he believes had gotten into a similar situation with another

supervisor, but who was not placed off the clock.

Supervisor A stated that while sitting at his desk on the morning of

May 7th, he heard someone say, "What are you staring at?" Supervisor A

further stated that complainant's actions were intimidating and that

complainant appeared to be angry. He indicated that complainant again

asked him why he was staring and what the problem was. Supervisor A

testified that he then instructed complainant to continue working.

While noting that complainant disobeyed his instruction and again

inquired as to why he was staring and what the problem was, supervisor

A stated that he then went over to complainant's letter case and asked

complainant if he was alright. Supervisor A testified that at that point,

complainant stepped towards him and responded in a hostile tone, "What are

you staring at?" Supervisor A stated that because he felt threatened by

complainant's actions, he immediately directed him to the Postmaster's

office. Supervisor A further stated that complainant was very angry,

boisterous and belligerent in the Postmaster's presence. Supervisor A

declared that complainant had to be asked, twice, to leave the premises.

The Postmaster testified that complainant was brought into the office

by supervisor A because of his threatening actions and verbal abuse

towards him. She indicated that because complainant was very angry,

boisterous and belligerent, her decision at that time was to remove

him from the building. She declared that her assessment was that a

"threat with real intent to harm existed." The Postmaster stated that

complainant has had a hostile attitude towards supervisor A in the past.

The Postmaster further stated that she has not had any similar incidents

involving other employees.

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on August 21, 1996.

An investigation was conducted, and the agency issued its FAD on November

10, 1997.

The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of race or sex discrimination because he presented no evidence that

similarly situated individuals not in his protected classes were treated

differently under similar circumstances. The FAD then concluded that the

agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,

namely, that the Postmaster stated that she believed complainant posed an

imminent threat of harm. The FAD further noted that complainant had also

exhibited hostility toward Supervisor A in the past as well. The FAD

finally concluded that complainant's evidence did not establish that

more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext

to mask unlawful discrimination.

ANALYSIS

Complainant can establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination

by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to

an inference of discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Admin.,

EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas,

411 U.S. at 802). In general, to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination based on a Title VII disparate treatment claim,

complainant must show that he belongs to a statutorily protected

class and that he was accorded treatment different from that accorded

persons otherwise similarly situated who are not members of the class.

Comer v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Request No. 05940649

(May 31, 1996)(citing Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518

F.2d 864, 865 (6th Cir. 1975)). In order for two or more employees to be

considered similarly situated for the purpose of creating an inference

of disparate treatment, complainant must show that all of the relevant

aspects of her employment situation are nearly identical to those of

the comparative employees whom she alleges were treated differently.

Smith v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 770 F.2d 719, 723 (8th Cir. 1985).

Here the record shows that complainant is a member of two protected

groups: Black and male. However, the Commission finds that complainant

has not established that other employees not of his protected group

were treated differently under similar circumstances. Complainant cited

one White male for comparison. However, the record does not show that

this White comparator was involved in a similar situation involving

the Postmaster. In fact, the Postmaster stated that she has not had any

similar incidents involving other employees. Thus, the Commission finds

that all of the relevant aspects of complainant's employment situation are

not nearly identical to those of the comparative employee whom he alleges

was treated differently. In the absence of any other evidence from which

to infer a discriminatory motive, the Commission finds that complainant

has not established a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination.

Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record, and for

the foregoing reasons, it is the decision of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding

no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 (S1199)

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:

March 17, 2000

____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's

federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations

apply to all Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in

the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where

applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,

may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.