Douglas H. Stup, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital-Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 6, 2000
01a00080 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 6, 2000)

01a00080

12-06-2000

Douglas H. Stup, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital-Metro Area), Agency.


Douglas H. Stup v. United States Postal Service

01A00080

December 6, 2000

.

Douglas H. Stup,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Capital-Metro Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A00080

Agency No. 1K-221-0093-98

Hearing No. 100-99-7512X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 appeal is

accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges he was

discriminated against on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity)

when on June 2, 1998, he was twice directed to perform tasks outside

the scope of his duties.

For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final

decision.

The record reveals that complainant, a PS-5 Distribution Clerk employed

at the agency's Merrifield Processing and Distribution Center, filed a

formal EEO complaint with the agency on September 14, 1998, alleging

that the agency had discriminated against him as referenced above.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy

of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,

finding that complainant failed to state a claim of reprisal.

The undisputed record shows the following: On June 2, 1998, complainant's

supervisor instructed complainant to distribute mail to the loading dock

and onto the appropriate trucks. Complainant's position description

includes such functions and management has the exclusive right to direct

employees of the United States Postal Service in the performance of

their official duties. The undisputed record also shows that Clerks in

complainant's section were routinely and uniformly required to perform

such functions. While complainant contends that he was permitted to

�work outside his bid job,� there is no evidence or sufficiently detailed

allegations to support this contention.<2>

The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision.

On appeal, complainant contends, inter alia, that the AJ erred when he

failed to address and consider: (1) the fact that complainant had filed

a prior EEO complaint against the same supervisor regarding incidents

occurring in September and October, 1997; (2) that complainant had

represented approximately 13 individuals in prior EEO complaints

against the agency; (3) a prior unrelated settlement agreement between

complainant and the agency which the agency agreed to �always act

in a professional manner when performing duties of a supervisory

nature and to treat all employees equally and fairly without regard

to any discriminatory factor;�<3> and (4) the existence of a pattern

of harassment. In addition, for the first time on appeal, complainant

describes<4> the job duties of a �General Expediter� in an attempt to

show that the responsibility to distribute mail to the loading dock and

onto the appropriate trucks falls under such position description rather

than his own position of Distribution Clerk.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the

AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the

appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. Contrary to complainant's

contentions, the AJ did consider the fact that complainant engaged in

prior protected activity and that his supervisor knew of such activity.

In addition, the record fails to show that complainant was treated

differently from similarly situated individuals outside complainant's

protected class or that any of the agency's actions were motivated by

retaliation for his engagement in prior EEO activity.

Moreover, we find that even if complainant could show that he was asked

to perform functions outside his bid job, the incidents alleged would

not indicate that complainant has been subjected to harassment that was

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.

Moreover, the complaint does not otherwise challenge an unlawful

employment policy or practice. See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury,

Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997).

We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. 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 final decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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:

December 6, 2000

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

__________________

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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 Complainant failed to respond to a request by the investigator to

complete an investigative affidavit and questionnaire on specific

unaddressed relevant issues. However, for the first time on appeal,

complainant argues that the requested duties fell outside his official

duties.

3 There is no indication that complainant is alleging breach of settlement

agreement. However, without deciding the issue of timeliness, should

complainant desire to pursue a breach of settlement allegation against

the agency, he should immediately contact an EEO counselor.

4 We note that complainant fails to provide corroborating evidence of

his description of the General Expediter position, nor does he provide

evidence that the Distribution Clerk position excludes such duties.