Jos� Ginete, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 19, 2000
01994169 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 19, 2000)

01994169

12-19-2000

Jos� Ginete, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Jos� Ginete v. United States Postal Service

01994169

December 19, 2000

.

Jos� Ginete,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01994169

Agency No. 1A-111-0064-97

DECISION

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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated

against on the bases of national origin (Puerto Rican) and retaliation

(prior EEO activity) when, on April 7, 1997, following an accident,

complainant was placed in non-driving status; and on April 23, 1997,

he issued a 14-day suspension for being at fault in the April 7, 1997

accident.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed

as a Motor Vehicle Operator (MVO), PS-5, at the agency's Brooklyn, New

York facility. Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant

sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on April

6, 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, the agency

issued a final decision.<2>

In its FAD, the alleged Responsible Management Official (RMO) testified

that the MVO national agreement provides for the revocation of driving

privileges as an administrative action where a driver has been deemed

to have operated a vehicle in an unsafe manner. The RMO averred that

he exercised his authority to apply this provision in an equitable

manner where an employee's five year driving safety history indicated

a need to do so. The RMO stated that complainant has not been singled

out and that he was unaware of the complainant's prior EEO activity.<3>

Furthermore, the agency noted that the disciplinary action taken against

complainant was specifically in response to complainant's backing into

another vehicle which was backing into the loading platform at the

Kew Gardens Station. At that time, complainant had a record of prior

discipline which was considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

In conclusion, the agency found that the complainant failed to show how he

was treated differently than any other employee, nor did the complainant

prove that �but for� his previous EEO activity, that he would not have

been disciplined.

On appeal, complainant raises, in detail, his dissatisfaction with the

quality in which his complaint was processed. In support, he submits

copies of three proposed failed settlement agreements between himself

and the agency. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental

Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st

Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the Commission

agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of national origin discrimination because complainant has failed

to establish that he was treated differently than similarly-situated

employees. Moreover, the Commission further finds that complainant failed

to present evidence that more likely than not, the agency's articulated

reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching

this conclusion, we note that record demonstrates that the complainant

has been involved in two at-fault accidents with a twelve-month period

and four accidents within five years.

In order to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, a complainant must

show: (1) that he engaged in protected activity, e.g., participated in

a Title VII proceeding; (2) that the alleged discriminating official

was aware of the protected activity; (3) that he was disadvantaged by

an action of the agency contemporaneous with or subsequent to such

participation; and (4) that there is a causal connection between

the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Hochstadt

v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318

(D. Mass.), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976); see also Mitchell

v. Baldridge, 759 F.2d 80, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Burrus v. United Telephone

Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,

459 U.S. 1071 (1982). Even assuming complainant established a prima

facie case of reprisal, he failed to show that the agency's reasons for

its actions were reprisal for his protected activity.

On appeal, complainant raises his dissatisfaction with the processing of

his complaint. He argues, among other things, that the EEO investigator

failed to interview the comparative employees named in his complaint.

While he did name comparative employees who were not interviewed,

the record includes records of the complainant's and the comparative

employees' driving history, in addition to complainant's testimony. The

record shows that complainant had more motor vehicle accidents within

the past five years than any of the comparatives named in his affidavit.

Even assuming these comparatives had been interviewed, we fail to see how

such evidence would relate to complainant's claims of discrimination.

Similarly, complainant argues that the findings of a prior investigator

were not included in the package submitted to Connecticut.<4> However,

complainant has failed to indicate what these findings were or how they

may have affected this present complaint.

The complainant also makes reference to three thwarted proposals of

settlement offered by the agency and the complainant's contentions with

each. However, �[s]ettlement negotiations, including any statements or

proposals, are to be treated as confidential and privileged to facilitate

a candid interchange to settle disputes informally.� Harris v. Department

of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05941002 (March 23, 1995).

In addition, complainant now raises new claims which were not previously

raised with the EEO counselor or in his formal complaint; for instance,

being denied union representation, being removed from his craft, as well

as change of pay location and hours during the time the agency removed

him from his craft, among other things. Complainant is advised that if he

wishes to pursue, through the EEO process, these claims raised for the

first time on appeal, he should initiate contact with an EEO Counselor

within 15 days after he receives this decision. The Commission advises

the agency that if complainant seeks EEO counseling regarding the new

claims within the above 15-day period, the date complainant filed the

appeal statement in which he raised these claims with the agency shall

be deemed to be the date of the initial EEO contact, unless he previously

contacted a counselor regarding these matters, in which case the earlier

date would serve as the EEO Counselor contact date. Cf. Alexander

J. Qatsha v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970201 (January

16, 1998).

After a careful review of the record, we find no evidence, and the

complainant has not established, that the processing of complainant's

complaint affected the outcome of his complaint. The agency's final

decision is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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

December 19, 2000

__________________

Date

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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 The record reflects that on February 1, 1999, the complainant responded

to the Report of Investigation; however, he did not request either a

hearing or a final agency decision on the matter, thus, triggering the

agency's issuance of a final decision in accordance with Commission

regulations.

3 Complainant indicated that his prior EEO activity was settled by

another supervisor in 1993.

4 We assume this refers to the Investigating Office.