Jason T. Leone, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 26, 2009
0120073793 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 26, 2009)

0120073793

02-26-2009

Jason T. Leone, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.


Jason T. Leone,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southwest Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073793

Hearing No. 460-2007-00059X

Agency No. 1G-774-0005-06

DECISION

On August 29, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's August

20, 2007 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)

complaint alleging 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. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission

AFFIRMS the agency's final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a data conversion operator at the agency's facility in Beaumont, TX.

Complainant was a non-career temporary employee with the agency and was

appointed to his position for a series of specific terms. Complainant's

final appointment with the agency began on April 19, 2006 and expired

on June 2, 2006. On or about June 2, 2006, complainant learned that

the agency would not renew his appointment beyond June 2, 2006.

On September 18, 2006, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that

he was discriminated against on the basis of sex (male) when on June 2,

2006, the agency failed to renew his non-career appointment as a data

conversion operator.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely

requested a hearing. The AJ held a hearing on July 17, 2007. In a

decision dated August 6, 2007, the AJ concluded that complainant failed

to demonstrate that he was subjected to discrimination because he did

not prove that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were

pretext for discrimination. The agency subsequently issued a final

order fully adopting the AJ's findings.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ improperly found no

discrimination because the acting supervisor who terminated him

was evasive and attempted to conceal material facts in his affidavit

responses. "By submitting these three affidavits, [the acting supervisor]

has committed perjury and therefore the agency cannot have articulated

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to renew [his]

appointment," complainant argues. The agency requests that the Commission

affirm its final order.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by

an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal

Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)

(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory

intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a

de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or

on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or

other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so

lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it.

See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).

In a claim such as the instant one which alleges disparate treatment, and

where there is an absence of direct evidence of such discrimination, the

allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof is a three-step

process. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,

142 (2000) (applying the analytical framework described in McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973), to an ADEA disparate

treatment claim). First, complainant must establish a prima facie case

of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably

give rise to an inference of discrimination; i.e., that a prohibited

consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. Kimble

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01983020 (Aug. 22, 2001).

The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has

articulated such a reason, the question becomes whether the proffered

explanation was the true reason for the agency's action, or merely

a pretext for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509

U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Although the burden of production, in other words,

"going forward," may shift, the burden of persuasion, by a preponderance

of the evidence, remains at all times on complainant. Burdine, 450

U.S. at 256.

Assuming arguendo that complainant established a prima facie case of

sex discrimination, we nonetheless find that the agency articulated

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not renewing his appointment.

Specifically, complainant's supervisor testified that complainant was not

reappointed because he missed 6 out of 45 days of his final appointment

term, fell asleep on the job, and performed below the keystroke standards

for the data conversion operator position. Complainant argues that

the supervisor's explanation is pretextual because the supervisor gave

evasive, false, and inconsistent answers in investigatory affidavits.

The AJ determined that the supervisor credibly testified that supervisors

previously had been encouraged to provide limited information regarding

why an employee's appointment was not renewed in order to avoid giving

the employee grounds on which to file a grievance. We find that the

AJ's credibility determinations are not contradicted by any evidence.

We further note that although the supervisor only fully expounded upon the

reasons for not renewing complainant's contract in a post-investigation

statement and in hearing testimony, his previous investigatory affidavit

statements contain the same core reasons for not renewing complainant's

contract as his hearing testimony, i.e., complainant had poor attendance

and performance issues. We find that substantial evidence supports the

AJ's conclusion that complainant failed to rebut the agency's explanations

as pretext for unlawful discrimination. Therefore, we find that the AJ

properly found no discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record, the Commission

affirms the agency's final order.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

_February 26, 2009_________________

Date

2

0120073793

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120073793