01a00294
03-22-2000
Barry Craft, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Areas), Agency.
Barry Craft, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A00294
v. ) Agency No. 1H-351-0045-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Areas), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race
(White) when: (1) on April 4, 1997, he was instructed not to work overtime
without consent; (2) on April 14, 1997, his lunch and break schedules
were changed; and (3) he was given a pre-disciplinary discussion.
For the following reasons, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Mailhandler at the agency's General Mail Facility, Birmingham,
Alabama facility. Believing he was a victim of discrimination,
complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on September 17, 1997. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant was informed of his right to request a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision
by the agency. Complainant initially requested a hearing. On March 11,
1999, complainant rescinded his hearing request, and requested that the
agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of race discrimination in that he failed to provide
evidence that similarly situated individuals not in his protected class
were treated more favorably than he was under similar circumstances.
The agency also found that it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, the agency maintained that
complainant was instructed not to work overtime because he was habitually
taking unauthorized overtime. Complainant's supervisor also testified
that all Mailhandler's had their lunch and break schedules changed due
to the agency's desire to stagger breaks so Mailhandler were available
throughout the day. Finally, complainant's supervisor testified that
she issued the official discussion because complainant, contrary to
instructions issued on April 4, 1997, worked unauthorized overtime on
April 4, 7, 8 and 9, 1997.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency did not conduct a proper
investigation. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411,
U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission finds that complainant failed to present
evidence that proved more likely than not, the agency's articulated
reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching
this conclusion, we note that complainant presented insufficient evidence
that race was the reason for his overtime instructions, change in break
schedule, or official discussion. The record reveals that individuals
outside of complainant's class were issued discipline, and subjected to
changes in their break schedule. Complainant failed to prove that the
agency's reason for denying him overtime was due to his race, and not
because he consistently worked unauthorized overtime.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, 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).
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 22, 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.