Daniel Allen, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 24, 2000
01985999 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 24, 2000)

01985999

03-24-2000

Daniel Allen, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Daniel Allen v. United States Postal Service

01985999

March 24, 2000

Daniel Allen, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985999

v. ) Agency No. 4-H-350-1269-96

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (black) and sex (male) in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>

For the reasons stated herein, the agency's FAD is affirmed.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether complainant has established that the

agency discriminated against him based on the above factors.<2>

BACKGROUND

During the period in question, complainant was employed as a City

Carrier, Grade 05, in an Alabama facility of the agency. Believing he

was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and,

subsequently, filed a complaint alleging that the agency discriminated

against him based on race (black) and sex (male) when it issued him a

Letter of Warning (LOW) charging him with an unauthorized stop/deviation

of his route.

Complainant stated that the agency's action was discriminatory because

carriers outside of his protected classes were not disciplined in the

same manner as he for similar infractions. Complainant indicated, for

example, that a female carrier committed the same infraction of which

he was charged but she did not receive a LOW. He added that the LOW

at issue here was just one incident of harassment, among many, by his

supervisor (C-1) and the facility postmaster.

C-1 stated that he issued the LOW because he observed complainant's

vehicle in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant that was a deviation

from his mail route. He further indicated that complainant was given

the LOW pursuant to a provision of the carrier handbook that read,

"Do not deviate from your route for meals or other purposes unless

authorized by your manager or if local policies concerning handling

out of sequence mail permit minor deviations . . . Enter premises for

official duty only � except for authorized lunch periods."

At the conclusion of the complaint's investigation, the agency notified

complainant of his right to a hearing before an EEOC administrative

judge or an immediate FAD. The agency issued a FAD concluding that

complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination

based on race. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

When a complainant relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an

agency's discriminatory intent or motive, there is a three step,

burden-shifting process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). The initial burden is on the complainant to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. The burden then shifts to

the agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its challenged action. Id. If the agency is successful, the complainant

must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency is merely pretext

for its discrimination. Id. at 804.

Because the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its action, we may proceed directly to determining whether complainant

satisfied his burden for showing pretext. Haas v. Department of Commerce,

EEOC Request No. 05970837 (July 7, 1999)(citing U.S. Postal Service

Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983)). Complainant may do this

in one of two ways, either directly, by showing that a discriminatory

reason more likely motivated the agency, or indirectly, by showing that

the agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Texas Dep't

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Essentially,

the fact finder must be persuaded by the complainant that the agency's

articulated reason was false and that its real reason was discrimination.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).

In this case, the agency indicated that it issued the LOW to complainant

for an unauthorized stop/deviation from his route. Complainant stated

that the agency's actual reason was discriminatory because similarly

situated persons outside of his protected classes committed comparable

infractions but did not receive comparable discipline. The record

revealed that C-1 disciplined two black males and two white males

with either suspension or LOW within 15 months of complainant's LOW.

The record also revealed that C-1 did not discipline any females within

a time period in close proximity to complainant's LOW. However, there

was no objective evidence that a female was observed behaving in such a

manner as to warrant disciplining. Accordingly, the complainant failed

to prove discrimination based on race or sex.

CONCLUSION

The Commission finds that complainant failed to present evidence that

more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions

were a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, after a careful review of

the record, including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's

response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this

decision, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no discrimination.

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 24, 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 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.

2 The agency, through the EEO process for the complaint at issue,

acknowledged the basis of race only. The record revealed that complainant

indicated on several occasions that the agency acted adversely against

him because he was a black, male, union president. Consequently, the

bases of both race and sex are addressed herein. Complainant's union

activity is not addressed because nothing indicated that he raised any

protected issues in the grievance process. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.301.