01970709
01-24-2000
James P. Pedrazzoli, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
James P. Pedrazzoli v. United States Postal Service
01970709
January 24, 2000
James P. Pedrazzoli, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01970709
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 4-H-327-1005-96
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of physical disability (lower back pain) and in retaliation for
prior EEO activity, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1> Complainant alleges that he
was discriminated against when he was issued a Letter of Warning.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time period, complainant
was employed as a Letter Carrier at the agency's Vero Beach, Florida
Post Office. On July 29, 1995, in the course of delivering his mail
route while carrying an unusually heavy shoulder bag, complainant injured
his back. According to the agency, before complainant had begun his
route on that day, complainant's supervisor had instructed him not to
use a shoulder bag. Rather, so as to avoid strain on complainant's back,
the supervisor instructed complainant to carry smaller amounts of mail in
his hands. According to complainant, his supervisor gave no such order
with respect to use of the shoulder bag. On September 18, 1995, the
agency issued complainant a Letter of Warning charging him with "failure
to follow instructions" by disregarding his supervisor's instructions
to avoid use of a shoulder bag thereby causing injury to himself.
Believing himself to have been a victim of discrimination, complainant
sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on November
15, 1995. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant did not
request a hearing. Thereafter, the agency issued a final agency decision.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of disability discrimination because he presented no evidence that his
physical condition substantially limited him in a "major life function."
The FAD also concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of retaliation because he did not prove a causal connection
between his prior EEO activity and the contested agency action.
From the FAD, complainant brings the instant appeal. The agency requests
that we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny, Texas
Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981),
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), and Hochstadt
v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318
(D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell
Douglas to retaliation cases), the Commission finds that complainant
failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's
articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination
or retaliation.<2>
In reaching this conclusion, we find, complainant's statement to the
contrary notwithstanding, that he was instructed to avoid the use of
the shoulder bag. In this connection we note that the record contains
detailed statements both by the supervisor and by one of complainant's
co-workers, establishing that complainant had been instructed to avoid
use of the shoulder bag.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, the agency's response,
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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 (3O) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (2O) CALENDAR DAYS
OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
1/24/00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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:
1/24/00
Date ________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
1On 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable,
in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be
found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary where, as here, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, i.e.,
complainant's failure properly to follow his supervisor's directions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reason for its actions
was a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-17 (1983).