01990281
04-25-2000
Anthony M. Hudson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Anthony M. Hudson v. United States Postal Service
01990281
April 25, 2000
Anthony M. Hudson, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01990281
v. ) Agency No. 4G770071897
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
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 (White) 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 the agency discriminated against him when: (1) the
agency issued him a Letter of Warning for beginning his tour of duty on a
PS Form 1260; and (2) the agency did not allow him to make a full tour of
overtime on his non-scheduled day. 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 FAD.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a letter carrier at the agency's Oak Forest Station, Houston, Texas
facility. Complainant alleged that on July 23, 1997, he and two other
employees (Black males) began their tours early. However, the agency
only issued him a Letter of Warning to discipline him for his actions.
In addition, the complainant alleged that the agency did not offer him
a full tour of overtime on September 2, 1997.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling, and subsequently, he filed a complaint on October 1, 1997.<2>
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the
agency issue a final agency decision.
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.
Complainant makes no new arguments on appeal. The agency requests that
we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence, a claim of discrimination is examined
under the three-part analysis originally enunciated in McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green. 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail,
he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting
facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of
discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor
in the adverse employment action. Id. at 802; Furnco Construction
Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the
agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
action. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the
ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of
the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
In this case, the Commission finds that the agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. First of all,
the agency stated that complainant was previously counseled on beginning
his tour of duty early and on putting his time on PS Form 1260 instead
of his time card. Also, the agency produced evidence that the two
comparison employees (Black males) did not begin their tours early on
July 23, 1997. Therefore, the agency did not need to discipline them.
Secondly, the agency did not offer complainant overtime on September
2, 1997 because he was on annual leave August 30, 1997, September 1,
1997 was a holiday, and his non-scheduled day was September 2, 1997.
Although complainant was on the overtime desired list, he did not notify
the agency that he would be willing to work on his non-scheduled day
or on his annual leave day. According to policy, the agency does not
offer overtime to employees who are on annual leave. Also, the agency
does not offer overtime to employees on their non-scheduled day unless
they acknowledge their ability to work.
Because the agency has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the alleged discriminatory events, complainant now bears the
burden of establishing that the agency's stated reasons are merely a
pretext for discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this
by showing that the agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason.
Id. (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
We find that complainant has failed to meet this burden.
Regarding claim 1, complainant violated a time keeping policy and received
discipline accordingly. Agency officials discussed this problem with
employees and stressed the importance of keeping correct time. The two
comparison employees offered by complainant did not violate the policy
and were not disciplined. In claim 2, the agency did not offer overtime
to employees on annual leave or to employees who did not acknowledge
their ability to work. Other employees in and outside of complainant's
protected classes were overlooked for overtime if it was not their turn
or they did not acknowledge their ability to work.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to present evidence that
more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions
were a pretext for discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
April 25, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 On 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.
2 In the formal complaint, complainant alleged six claims of
discrimination. On December 19, 1997, the agency partially dismissed
the complaint and ordered only two of the six claims to be investigated.
Complainant did not appeal the partial dismissal of his claims.