0120121440
07-20-2012
Charles E. Artis, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Charles E. Artis,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121440
Hearing No. 490-2010-00094X
Agency No. 4H-370-0122-09
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's January 6, 2012 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Sales, Service and Distribution Associate, PS-6, at the Agency's Lenoir City Carrier Annex in Lenoir City, Tennessee.
On September 26, 2009, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), disability (degenerative arthritis and left knee replacement), age (40), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when:
1. on or about July 2, 2009, he was reassigned to Oak Ridge, Tennessee as a result of excessing;
2. on or about July 4, 2009, he was reassigned to Lenoir City, Tennessee as a result of excessing; and
3. on a continuing basis, he has not received appropriate compensation for relocation/travel expenses.
After the investigation of the complaint, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant initially requested a hearing. However, Complainant subsequently withdrew his request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision on January 12, 2012, 2009, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
In its January 6, 2012 final decision, the Agency found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race, sex, disability, age and reprisal discrimination. The Agency further found that assuming, for the sake of argument only, Complainant established a prima facie case of race, sex, disability, age and reprisal discrimination, Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant did not show were a pretext.
Regarding claim 1, the District Compliment Coordinator (C1) stated that he helped facilitate the excessing of employees from the Memphis bid cluster. C1 stated that management made a determination to reduce the number of full-time regular clerk craft employees by 48 within the Memphis district due to "reduction of mail volume and workload." C1 stated that Complainant was selected to be excessed "based on his seniority date along with the others that were excessed." C1 stated that he relied on the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Agency and the union.
With respect to Complainant's assertion that he was involuntary reassigned to Oak Ridge, C1 stated that "it was not true. An administrative error was made on the worksheet sent to HRSSC and corrected to reflect his reassignment to Lenoir City."
Regarding claim 2, C1 stated that Complainant was only reassigned once which was to Lenoir City and "was given a job offer within his restrictions." The Manager, Budget stated that the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) met and discussed which position would best fit Complainant's medical restrictions.
Regarding claim 3, C1 stated that Complainant was eligible to receive travel and relocation expenses which are handled through a third party contract company.
A Manager stated that Complainant needed to fill out the proper forms to get relocation benefits and she offered assistance after being contacted by a Congressman's office concerning the matter.
The instant appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant raises no new arguments.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie 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. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. 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 actions. See 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. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In the instant case, we find that Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, as detailed above. Neither during the investigation, nor on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Complainant, on appeal, has provided no persuasive arguments indicating any improprieties in the Agency's findings. Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 20, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120121440
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121440
6
0120121440