01990905
05-02-2000
Calvin N. Wolfe, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Calvin N. Wolfe v. United States Postal Service
01990905
May 2, 2000
Calvin N. Wolfe, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01990905
) Agency No. 1E-981-1069-96
) Hearing No. 380-98-8244X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On October 30, 1998, Calvin N. Wolfe (the complainant) timely filed an
appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated October 21, 1998, 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 Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly reduced the amount
of compensatory damages awarded by the Administrative Judge.
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed by the agency as a Mailhandler, PS-04, at the
agency's Processing and Distribution Center in Seattle, Washington.
Complainant initiated EEO Counseling on September 4, 1996. He filed
a formal complaint on October 9, 1996, alleging discrimination on the
bases of race (African American) and color (black) when: 1) on August
9, 1996, his request for leave was denied; 2) on August 11, 1996, he
was admonished about work conduct; and 3) on August 21, 1996, he was
invited to a meeting with two supervisors to address training concerns.
The agency accepted the complaint for investigation and processing.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided a
copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing on September 3, 1998,
the AJ issued a decision finding discrimination on issue 1, but finding
no discrimination with respect to issues 2 and 3.
The AJ concluded that complainant established a prima facie case of
race and color discrimination on issue 1 because he had established
that a similarly situated employee not of his protected class (white)
(CO-1) had requested leave for the same day as complainant and her
request was granted. The AJ then concluded that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that
CO-1 had requested leave long before complainant's request, and all
the employees were needed that day because of the busy volume of mail.
The AJ then concluded that complainant established that the agency's
reasons were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching his conclusion,
the AJ found that CO-1 had actually asked for leave after complainant had,
and that the agency misrepresented when CO-1 had placed her request.
The agency claimed that CO-1's original leave request proving she had
requested it prior to complainant had been misplaced. The testimony of
CO-1 at the hearing, however, was that she had requested it the day after
complainant had placed his request, and she denied asking for leave at
an earlier date.
As a remedy, the AJ ordered: that the agency take no retaliatory action
against the complainant, his representative, or his witnesses for having
filed and prosecuted the discrimination complaint; that the complainant
be paid $2,500.00 in compensatory damages for emotional distress; that the
agency insure that in the future the complainant and other black employees
under the relevant supervisors are not subjected to the same or similar
acts of discrimination; and that the agency post an appropriate notice.
The AJ based his compensatory damages finding on the stress experienced
by complainant, the "insult of race discrimination and the embarrassment
and humiliation for seeing a white person get favored while he was denied
and in front of his co-workers," and the medical attention complainant
sought subsequent to the incidents (weekly doctor visits for a four
month period).
The agency's final decision accepted the AJ's findings with respect to his
conclusion that discrimination had been established for issue 1, but not
for issues 2 and 3. It stated that it would implement the relief ordered
by the AJ but modified it, rejecting the AJ's decision with regard to the
amount of compensatory damages awarded, and reducing the damages from
$2,500.00 to $350.00. The agency argued that complainant had provided
minimal testimony on the emotional effect the denial of leave had on him,
and that the bulk of his emotional distress was caused by issues 2 and 3,
on which the AJ found no discrimination. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)), all post-hearing factual findings by an
Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,
477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not
discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard
Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the AJ's
decision summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
decision. We also find no basis to disturb the amount of compensatory
damages awarded by the AJ, and find that the amount was reasonable based
on the evidence contained in the record, and based on the AJ's evaluation
of the complainant's demeanor and credibility at the hearing. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including complainant's arguments on
appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically
discussed in this decision, the Commission REVERSES the agency's final
agency decision and remands the matter to the agency to take remedial
actions in accordance with this decision and the ORDER below.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency is REVERSED and REMANDED for
further processing in accordance with this decision and the proper
regulations.
ORDER
The agency is hereby ordered to issue a check to complaint in the amount
of $2,500.00, less any amounts already paid, plus interest, within
60 days of the date of this decision. A copy of the check issued to
complainant must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,
the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a
civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior
to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a
civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph
below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407
and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the
underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �
2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
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 (R1199)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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 (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:
_05-02-00_________ __________________________________
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
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.