Juan W. Layme, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 1, 2009
0120092032 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 1, 2009)

0120092032

09-01-2009

Juan W. Layme, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Juan W. Layme,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120092032

Hearing No. 510-2008-00132X

Agency No. 4A-006-0059-05

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

agency decision dated February 25, 2009, dismissing 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(a).

During the relevant period, complainant worked as a mail clerk at a San

Juan, Puerto Rico facility of the agency. On May 6, 2005, complainant

initiated EEO contact alleging that the agency discriminated against him

on the bases of race (Peruvian), national origin (not from Puerto Rico),

disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and reprisal for prior

protected EEO activity when (1) he was informed that there was no work

available at his facility and was assigned to another station to cover

an emergency, and (2) the agency denied him training and opportunities

as a supervisor. In a formal EEO complaint dated September 2, 2005,

complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against him when

it removed him and took the actions alleged in (2). Initially, the

agency dismissed the claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a) and

complainant filed an appeal with the Commission, which was docketed as

Layme v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A60481.

In Layme v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A60481 (April 25,

2006), the Commission found that the agency improperly dismissed (1) and

(2) for failure to state a claim and remanded the matters to the agency

for further processing. The agency conducted an investigation of (1)

and (2), after which complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). Following an extensive procedural history

at the hearing stage, in an Order of Dismissal dated January 20, 2009,

the AJ dismissed complainant's claims "for failure to comply with orders

of the Administrative Judge." The AJ cited failure by complainant

to attend a telephonic prehearing conference and the hearing, without

adequate justification. The AJ returned the complaint to the agency

for a final decision.

In its February 25 final decision, the agency dismissed (1) pursuant to 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor contact, stating that

management placed complainant at another facility effective February 5,

2005 to March 4, 2005 and complainant did not initiate EEO contact until

May 6, 2005; and (2) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure

to state a claim, stating that the record reveals that complainant had

various training and he failed to show that he requested and was denied

training or management opportunities. Further, the agency stated,

assuming complainant's claims are procedurally sufficient, he failed

to establish discrimination. The agency stated (1) in February 2005,

complainant was placed at another facility to cover an emergency -

leave for that station's employees and, in August 2005, complainant's

position and other similar positions were abolished under a District

Committee Review, but complainant remained to serve in other positions.

The agency reiterated its procedural explanation for (2). Summarily,

the agency found that complainant failed to establish prima facie

cases of discrimination or that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons articulated by the agency are pretext. The instant appeal from

complainant followed.

On appeal, complainant stated, as to (1), he was removed from his

position and assigned to another station between February 2005 and

August 2005 without regard for his medical restrictions and that he

is not grieving agency actions after August 6. For (2), complainant

stated that he learned that other clerks were scheduled and sent for

training during his placement at another assignment and a manager was

unwilling to provide him training or opportunities. Complainant stated

that managers spoke badly about him.

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo

review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management

Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that

the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine

the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the

previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements,

and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions

of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's

own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").

We find that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of

the evidence that discrimination occurred.1 To prevail in a disparate

treatment claim such as this, complainant must satisfy the three-part

evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He must generally establish a

prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse

employment action under circumstances that would support an inference

of discrimination. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567,

576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case,

however, since the agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory

reasons for its conduct. See U. S. Postal Service Board of Governors

v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans

Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately

prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that the agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000);

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Dep't of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Dep't

of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997);

Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14,

1995). We find that complainant failed to present evidence that the

agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward his

protected classes. We find that complainant failed to show pretext.

Based on a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM the final agency

decision.

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

September 1, 2009

__________________

Date

1 We assume for the purpose of analysis that complainant is an individual

with a disability. See 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g)(1)

??

??

??

??

2

0120092032

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120092032