01997139
12-19-2000
Henry Thornton, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Henry Thornton v. United States Postal Service
01997139
December 19, 2000
.
Henry Thornton,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01997139
Agency No. 4H-350-1079-96
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>; and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant
alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases of race (Black),
color (black), sex (male), and age (54), when on October 20, 1995, he was
terminated from his position with the agency. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
During the relevant time, complainant was employed as a Part-time PS-05
Letter Carrier at the agency's Gadsden, Alabama, Post Office (�facility�).
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on April 11, 1996.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge, but later withdrew the request.
Thereafter, the agency issued its FAD, which concluded that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on race,
color or sex. The FAD found that while complainant established that
he is a member of protected classes and was subject to an unfavorable
employment action when he was terminated, he failed to demonstrate
that any similarly situated employees not in his protected groups
were treated more favorably. In so finding, the FAD noted that in
complainant's affidavit, he stated that he knew of no other similarly
situated employees in his unit who were treated differently. The FAD
further found that a similarly situated male employee who was not in
complainant's protected race or color groups also was terminated during
his probationary period. Finally, the FAD noted that the Supervisor,
Customer Services (SCS) testified that complainant was terminated during
his probationary period as he was unable to meet the minimum requirements
of his position as a Letter Carrier.
The FAD further found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of age discrimination, as there was no evidence in the record that
age was a determining factor in his termination, or that it was considered
at all. The FAD further found that even if complainant had
demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action which was not proven
to be pretextual in nature. As such, the FAD found that complainant
failed to establish discrimination on any basis. On appeal, complainant
contends that the evidence establishes that he was erroneously discharged
and that the SCS made false statements. The agency requests that we
affirm its FAD.
Where, as here, the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed
directly to the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated
by discrimination. U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983). Here, in response to complainant's claim of
discrimination, the agency presented evidence that explained its reasons
for the action. The SCS testified that complainant was terminated
during his probationary period as he was unable to meet the minimum
requirements of the Letter Carrier position and as performance of his
duties was unacceptable. Investigative Report, at Affidavit B. The SCS
stated that three supervisors at the facility discussed complainant's
deficiencies with him, but that complainant required more supervision
from management and help from other carriers than any employee she
had seen in her nine years with the agency. In addition, the facility
Postmaster stated that the consensus of facility supervisors was that
complainant made no progress in improving his performance as a Letter
Carrier, and thus the supervisors recommended that he be terminated.
Specifically, the Postmaster stated that although complainant had been
on the same eight (8) hour postal route for several days, he required
10-11 hours to complete the assignment and also made numerous mistakes.
We note that a review of the record establishes that complainant received
four unacceptable and only two satisfactory performance ratings during
his first thirty (30) day probationary period, and he was terminated
before sixty (60) or ninety (90) day performance rating were required.
We thus find that the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions.
Since the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate that the
agency's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. We find
that complainant has failed to do so. While complainant has contended
that the statement of the SCS was not credible, we find no evidence in
the record to support the argument that the agency's articulated reasons
were a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, the Commission finds that
complainant failed to establish that he was discriminated against on
the bases of race, color, sex or age.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
December 19, 2000
__________________
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.