Clyde E. Bradford, Complainant,v.Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 2000
01974227 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)

01974227

03-29-2000

Clyde E. Bradford, Complainant, v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Clyde E. Bradford v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01974227

March 29, 2000

Clyde E. Bradford, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01974227

) Agency No. 95-1869

Togo D. West, Jr., )

Secretary, )

Department of Veterans Affairs, )

Agency. )

______________________________________)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) from the final agency decision concerning his equal

employment opportunity (EEO) complaint, which alleged discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted by the Commission in

accordance with the provisions of 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).<1>

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether the agency discriminated against

complainant on the basis of his race (Black) when, on January 31, 1994,

his request for one hour of annual leave was denied.

BACKGROUND

In a complaint dated April 7, 1996, complainant, then a Fiscal

Accounts Clerk, GS-5, alleged that the agency discriminated against

him as delineated in the above-entitled statement "Issue Presented."

The agency conducted an investigation, provided complainant with a copy

of the investigative report, and advised complainant of his right to

request either a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or

an immediate final agency decision (FAD). It appears that complainant

did not respond.<2> On March 10, 1997, the agency issued a FAD finding

no discrimination. It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This case involves a complaint alleging employment discrimination based

on race. In any proceeding, either administrative or judicial, involving

an allegation of discrimination, it is the burden of the complainant to

initially establish that there is some substance to his or her allegation.

In order to accomplish this burden the complainant must establish a

prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); see also Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,

438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). This means that the complainant must present

a body of evidence such that, were it not rebutted, the trier of fact

could conclude that unlawful discrimination did occur.

The record reflects that complainant was absent from work on January 31,

1994. He called in to request leave, and his supervisor (Black) granted

the seven hours of accrued sick leave available to him. Complainant

requested one hour of accrued annual leave in order to have a total of

eight hours leave, but that request was denied. Complainant failed to

identify any similarly situated individual outside of his protected group,

race (Black), whom he believes received more favorable treatment with

regard to the grant or denial of leave. Neither did complainant submit

any other evidence from which discriminatory animus may be inferred.

Accordingly, a prima facie case of race discrimination is not established.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a prima facie case had been

established, the burden would shift to the agency to articulate a

legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its action. Texas Dept. of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). In this regard,

the agency need only produce evidence sufficient "to allow the trier of

fact rationally to conclude" that the agency's action was not based on

unlawful discrimination. Id. at 257. Here, the agency explained that

complainant's request for one hour of annual leave was denied because

complainant had a backlog of work which needed to be cleared on account

of an impending audit and further, that Fiscal Service employees

were requested not to use annual leave when an audit was pending.

Complainant has adduced no evidence to show that this explanation was

merely a pretext for race discrimination. See St. Mary's Honor Center

v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Accordingly, complainant's claim

of race discrimination is not established.

CONCLUSION

Based upon a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons,

it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to

AFFIRM the final agency decision.

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 29, 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:

_________________________________ ________________________

Equal Employment Assistant Date

1On 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.

2Complainant refused to participate in the investigation of his complaint,

and submitted no statement in support of his appeal.