01970542
01-21-1999
George Williams, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Areas)) Agency.
George Williams v. United States Postal Service
01970542
January 21, 1999
George Williams, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01970542
) Agency No. 1D-281-1057-95
William J. Henderson, ) EEOC No. 140-96-8011X
Postmaster, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid Atlantic Areas))
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had not
discriminated against him 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 appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
Appellant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination based
on race (white), sex (male), and reprisal (prior EEO activity), when,
on March 23, 1995, the Manager of Distribution Operations stood in
front of him and stared at him, told appellant's supervisor to change
his work assignment, and appellant left sick and was later required to
submit a doctor's note. Following the agency's investigation, appellant
requested a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge. Finding that
there were no material facts in dispute, on September 4, 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 appellant had established a prima
facie case of discrimination based on reprisal, but not on race or sex.
Additionally, the AJ found that the agency had articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the agency
asserted that the Supervisor (Black male) and the Manager (Black male)
were observing the operation, rather than appellant. With respect to
the change in assignment, the AJ found that the agency had presented
persuasive testimony that the change in the work assignment was to show
certain employees the proper manner in which to separate three day state
mail. The agency also asserted that appellant was required to submit
medical documentation because he did not appear to be sick on the day in
question. The AJ found that appellant failed to present any persuasive
evidence that rebutted the agency's assertions. For that reason, the AJ
found that appellant had failed to prove that the agency's legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action were pretext for discrimination.
On September 26, 1996, the agency issued its final decision, adopting
the AJ's finding of no discrimination. It is from this decision that
appellant now appeals.
As appellant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment, the
agency properly analyzed it 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 appellant's complaint, the Commission finds that the agency
successfully rebutted any initial inference of discrimination raised by
appellant by articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the
actions at issue.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that appellant
failed to establish that the agency's reasons for its actions were
pretext for discrimination. We find that appellant's contentions on
appeal are without merit. Specifically, he failed to present sufficient
evidence proving that the agency's reasons for its actions were pretext
for prohibited discrimination. Accordingly, it is the decision of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final
decision that it did not discriminate against appellant, 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:
Jan 21, 1999
___________________ ____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations