James Daniels, III, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 3, 2002
01993924 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 3, 2002)

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.