01970147
10-15-1999
Kenneth D. Williams, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Kenneth D. Williams v. United States Postal Service
01970147
October 15, 1999
Kenneth D. Williams, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01970147
) Agency No. 1F-918-1001-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Kenneth D. Williams (appellant) timely initiated an appeal to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from the final decision of the
agency concerning appellant's allegations that the agency violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
The issue on appeal is whether the agency discriminated against appellant
on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity) when, on September 9,
1995, he was: (1) harassed and threatened by a manager; and, (2) issued
a Letter of Warning (the Letter) for Failure to Follow Instructions.
Appellant filed a formal EEO complaint raising the issues stated above
and a formal investigation was conducted. By letter dated April 29, 1996,
appellant was informed that, within 30 days of receipt of this letter,
he could either request an EEOC hearing or a final agency decision
(FAD) without a hearing. There is no record evidence that appellant
requested a hearing or a FAD. Consequently, on September 13, 1996,
the agency issued its FAD, which found no discrimination.
The agency found that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case
of reprisal discrimination because he did not show that he was treated
differently from comparative employees in similar situations. However,
the agency also found that it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
explanations for its actions. In this regard, the agency provided
testimony that appellant was not harassed and threatened by the alleged
responsible official (the RO) but was merely approached and questioned
about his failure to report to the Automation Section. The agency also
provided testimony that appellant was issued the Letter because of his
failure to follow the RO's instructions to report to the Automation
Section.
Finally, the agency found that appellant failed to prove that these
articulated explanations were pretextual.
Appellant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment and the
agency properly analyzed it under the three-tiered analytical framework
outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Texas
Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.248, 253-256 (1981);
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425
F.Supp. 318, aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st. Cir. 1976). See also McKenna
v. Weinburger, 729 F.2d 783, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1984) and Burrus v. United
Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982).
Applying these legal standards, the Commission finds that the agency
correctly determined that appellant failed to prove his allegations of
reprisal discrimination. We find that appellant failed to establish an
inference of reprisal discrimination because he provided no persuasive
evidence to rebut the RO's and the concurring official's (CO's) testimony
that they were unaware of appellant's prior EEO activity when the alleged
discrimination occurred. However, assuming that such a prima facie case
was established we agree with the agency that appellant did not prove
that the agency's articulated explanations were pretextual. We note that
several witnesses discredited appellant's version of events. We note
also that appellant presented no evidence to show that other employee(s)
failed to follow instructions by management but were not issued Letters.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to affirm the agency's
decision that appellant was not discriminated against on the basis of
reprisal as he alleged.
As a final matter, we note that, on appeal, appellant appears to state
that he would like an EEOC hearing on the case herein. However, the
record shows that appellant received appropriate information regarding
his right to request an EEOC hearing and that appellant did not make
such a request within the requisite time period.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Oct. 15, 1999
DATE Carlton Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations