01a00758
03-16-2000
Chavis Wright, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W areas), Agency.
Chavis Wright, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A00758
v. ) Agency No. 4H-330-0255-98
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W areas), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of race (African American), in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges he was discriminated against when, on January 23,
1998, he received a Notice of Emergency Placement into Off-Duty Status,
without pay, pending further notice. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Window Clerk, at the agency's Jose Marti Branch Post Office facility.
Complainant alleged that he was placed into an off duty status without
proof of guilt. He cited one comparative employee (Hispanic male) who
was treated more favorably than he was, but did not provide any further
explanation as to how this individual was treated more favorably than
he was.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on May 20, 1998. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant failed to request a hearing,
so the agency issued a final decision (FAD).
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination because he presented no evidence that similarly
situated individuals not in his protected class were treated differently
under similar circumstances. The agency also determined that complainant
failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's
reason for its action was pretext for discrimination.
Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal. The agency asks that
we affirm the FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission agrees with the
agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination because he failed to identify any similarly situated
individuals who were not placed into an off duty status pending a postal
inspection investigation into allegations that they failed to protect
postal funds. Furthermore, the Manager of Customer Services testified
that the individual cited as a comparative by complainant did not work
at complainant's facility.
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 the Manager of Customer Services testified that complainant
was issued the Notice of Emergency Placement into an off duty status
because a postal inspector investigation revealed that complainant had
improperly transacted a series of money orders. The postal inspector
corroborated this, and testified that complainant was being investigated
regarding the theft of money orders at the facility. We note complainant
has not disputed the charges, nor has he offered any evidence that the
agency's actions were based on a discriminatory animus towards his race.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we affirm the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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 16, 2000
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 after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________
Date
________________________
Equal Employment Assistant 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.