01990283
05-23-2000
Jerry B. James, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Areas Agency.
Jerry B. James v. United States Postal Service
01990283
May 23, 2000
Jerry B. James, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01990283
v. ) Agency No. 4H-350-1214-96
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Areas )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal of a final agency decision concerning
his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of race
(Black), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant alleges he was
discriminated against when he was denied reinstatement on April 9, 1996.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to
be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following reasons, the
Commission affirms the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was a
former Custodian seeking reinstatement at the agency's Alabama District
Office facility. Complainant alleged that he had sought reinstatement
after resigning his employment in September 1995 but was refused based
on his race. He further claimed that a White employee who was fired
was rehired.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on or about September 13,
1996. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a
hearing but later requested that the agency issue a final decision.
The agency concluded that the complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of race discrimination because he failed to produce evidence
that similarly situated individuals not in his protected class who
had unsatisfactory attendance records were reinstated. The agency
also concluded that the complainant's supervisor (Black) had approved
the reinstatement of other Black former employees. This negated
the inference, in the agency's view, that the denial was due to the
complainant's race.
On appeal, the complainant stated only that he was very sick at the time
and reiterated his contention that a white employee, who remained unnamed,
was fired and then rehired. The agency did not make any additional
statements on appeal.
Analysis and Findings
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th
Cir. 1981), the Commission affirms the final agency decision finding no
discrimination. The complainant's affidavit contained no facts outlining
his claim and left all but one of the agency's questions unanswered.
The complainant carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. McDonnell Douglas at 802.
Although the agency's investigation of the complainant's claim was only
barely adequate, it is also apparent from the record that the complainant
did not offer enough factual evidence for the investigator to pursue
in the investigation. For instance, the complainant complained that
the investigator did not take statements from appropriate witnesses
but neither the complainant's complaint nor his affidavit identified
any individuals by name. He only gave a blanket statement that a White
employee was treated more favorably than he.
The agency identified other former employees who also requested
reinstatement during the same period of time which tended to show that
some Black employees were rehired while at least one White employee
was not reinstated due to an unacceptable evaluation. The agency also
contended that the complainant could not be reinstated because he had
an unacceptable attendance record. The complainant failed to address
the agency's claim and therefore failed to establish that the agency's
reason was a pretext for discrimination. Id.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's
final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 23, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 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.