01970716
02-03-1999
George Williams, )
William McElroy, )
Barbara Williams, )
George Williams, )
Appellants, ) Appeal Nos. 01970932
) 01970716
v. ) 01970575
) Agency Nos. 1D-281-1012-96
William J. Henderson, ) 1D-281-1008-96
Postmaster, ) 1D-281-1013-96
United States Postal Service, ) EEOC Nos. 140-96-8120X
(Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Areas)) 140-96-8121X
Agency. ) 140-96-8122X
______________________________)
DECISION
Appellants timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had not
discriminated against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The Commission accepts
the appeals in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. In light of the
similarity between the issues involved in the appeals, the Commission
consolidates them pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.606.
Appellants filed formal EEO complaints, which were consolidated by
the agency, alleging discrimination based on race (white) and reprisal
(prior EEO activity), when, on October 13, 1995, they were each issued
a seven-day suspension for �Improper Conduct.�
Following the agency's investigation, appellants requested a hearing
before an EEOC administrative judge. Finding that there were no material
facts in dispute, on September 6, 1996, the AJ issued a Recommended
Decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(e)(3), finding no discrimination.
Specifically, the AJ found that appellants had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, but that the agency had articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the Supervisor
(Black) testified that he issued the charge of improper conduct because
appellants had deliberately processed mail on the wrong program.
The Supervisor further testified that appellants, as senior employees
should have known that the mail had been improperly processed. In all,
he said that appellants had collectively improperly keyed approximately
2,229 pieces of mail. The AJ found that appellants had not persuasively
refuted the Supervisor's observation that they had intentionally and
improperly keyed the mail. For that reason, the AJ found that appellants
had failed to prove that the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its action was pretext for discrimination. On October 10,
1996, the agency issued its final decision adopting the AJ's finding of
no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellants now appeal.
As appellants' complaints constitute claims of disparate treatment, the
agency properly analyzed them under the three-tiered analytical framework
outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); Hochstadt
v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, 425 F.Supp. 318, 324
(D. Mass.), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). Applying this legal
standard to appellants' complaints, the Commission finds that the agency
successfully rebutted any initial inference of discrimination raised by
appellants by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
the action at issue. Specifically, the agency issued the suspensions,
which were later reduced to Letters of Warning, for keying the wrong mail.
After a careful review of the records, the Commission finds that
appellants have failed to establish that the agency's reason for its
actions was pretext for discrimination. We find that appellants'
contentions on appeal are without merit. For example, they failed to
present sufficient evidence to prove that the agency's reason for its
action was pretext for prohibited discrimination. Accordingly, it is
the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
agency's final decision that it had not discriminated against appellants,
as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
_____2/3/99________ ____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations