01974906
03-10-1999
Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Areas), Agency.
Ronald L. Green v. United States Postal Service
01974906
March 10, 1999
Ronald L. Green,
Appellant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific/Western Areas),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01974906
Agency No. 4E-890-1046-94
Hearing No. 340-97-3108X
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission or EEOC) from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his allegation that the agency discriminated against him on the
bases of race (African American), color (black) and reprisal (prior EEO
activity), when on February 17, 1994, he had been physically interfered
with by a Senior Labor Relations Specialist (SL) while operating a
duplicating machine, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The Commission hereby
accepts the appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the
following reasons, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory event, appellant had formerly
been employed as a Maintenance Control and Stock Clerk at the agency's
General Mail Facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. Believing that he was the
victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO counseling and, thereafter,
filed a formal EEO complaint. The agency accepted the complaint for
investigation and complied with all of our procedural and regulatory
prerequisites. Subsequently, appellant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Upon informing the parties of his intention
to issue findings and conclusions without a hearing and permitting an
appropriate time for response, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD)
finding no discrimination. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e). In his RD,
the AJ concluded that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination on any basis. With respect to the race and color claims,
the AJ reasoned that appellant failed to present a similarly situated
comparative employee that was treated more favorably. Concerning the
reprisal claim, the AJ reasoned that appellant failed to show a nexus
between the prior EEO activity and the alleged discriminatory event.
Thereafter, the agency adopted the RD and issued a FAD, dated May 23,
1997, finding no discrimination. It is from this agency decision that
appellant now appeals. On appeal, appellant reiterates previously
submitted contentions and asserts that there were material facts in
dispute such that he should have been afforded a hearing.
The investigative record reveals that appellant was terminated from
employment with the agency on January 7, 1994. After visiting the Office
of Workers Compensation Programs on February 17, 1994, appellant asked a
staff member if he could make a copy of documents related to his claim.
While the staff member responded yes, she was not aware that appellant
intended to use the agency's duplicating equipment. In fact, while
appellant was still in the agency's employ, he had been advised that
he was not permitted to use the agency's equipment his personal use.
When appellant attempted to use the duplicating equipment, a confrontation
ensued between appellant and SL, who informed appellant that he was not
permitted to use the agency's equipment. Appellant failed to present a
similarly situated comparative employee, or former employee, that was
treated more favorably. Moreover, while SL was aware of appellant's
prior EEO activity, appellant failed to show a nexus between the SL's
actions and any prior EEO activity.
After careful review of the entire record, including appellant's
contentions on appeal, and 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. The Commission discerns no basis to
disturb the AJ's finding. Accordingly, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
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 (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. 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 10, 1999
______________ ____________________________________
Date Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations