01993924
01-03-2002
James Daniels, III, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
James Daniels, III v. United States Postal Service
01993924
January 3, 2002
.
James Daniels, III,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993924
Agency No. 1G701001998
DECISION
James Daniels, III (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. and Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
791 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), sex (male), age (50 at relevant time) and disability
(on-the-job back and neck injury) when his request for training as a
Dispatch Supervisor was denied on October 6, 1997.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Tractor Trailer Operator at the agency's Processing
and Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.<1> Believing he
was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling
and subsequently filed a formal complaint on January 23, 1998. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of his right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively,
to receive a final decision by the agency. When complainant failed to
respond within the time period specified in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f),
the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of race, sex, age, or disability discrimination,
noting that he did not establish that he was treated differently
than similarly-situated individuals outside of his protected groups.
The agency found that the comparative employees named by complainant
were in the same protected groups as he and that the named responsible
management official (RMO) did not make any of the decisions in regard
to the assignments of those individuals.
The agency went on to find that, even assuming complainant established
a prima facie case, he failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation
for its action was a pretext for discrimination. The agency noted
that complainant's request for training was not denied, but rather put
on file for future consideration. RMO noted that the Transportation
Operations office intended to train individuals currently working as
Motor Vehicle Operators before training those who are not currently
working in that position. The agency concluded that complainant was
not subjected to discrimination.
Complainant raises no contentions on appeal and the agency asks that
its FAD be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662
F.2d 292, 310 (5th Cir. 1981), the Commission agrees with the agency that
complainant failed to establish that he was subjected to discrimination.
Assuming complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, he
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
legitimate non-discriminatory explanation for its action was a pretext
for discrimination. In response to complainant's request for training as
a Dispatch Supervisor, RMO informed him that the policy of Transportation
Operations was to provide this training for individuals currently working
as Motor Vehicle Operators before doing any cross-training. RMO noted
that complainant's request for cross-training would be put on file.
In attempting to establish that this explanation is a pretext for
discrimination, complainant argued that other employees who were injured
on-the-job were permitted to receive training and subsequently became
supervisors. Complainant does not, however, dispute RMO's assertion that
he was not involved in any of the decisions regarding the comparators.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the named comparative employees
received dispatcher training despite being assigned to duties outside
the Motor Vehicle Operator position.
Although complainant argued that others injured while working as
Motor Vehicle Operators were permitted to remain in that craft and were
therefore eligible for dispatcher training, he acknowledged that he is no
longer able to drive and that it is for this reason that he is no longer
working as a Motor Vehicle Operator. He did not allege, nor is there
evidence in the record which suggests, that other individuals who were
injured while performing Motor Vehicle Operator duties and subsequently
were unable to perform those duties, were nonetheless given dispatcher
training.
Accordingly, complainant failed to provide any evidence to establish
that he was denied training due to a discriminatory animus, as opposed
to the agency's policy that employees currently working as Motor Vehicle
Operators were to receive dispatcher training before those working in
other positions.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
January 3, 2002
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1 Before he sustained an on-the-job injury in April 1993, complainant
worked as a Motor Vehicle Operator. In order to comply with his
post-accident medical restrictions, complainant was given a limited duty
assignment as a Tractor Trailer Operator.