Kenneth L. Thomas, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Southeast Area, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 7, 2000
01983018 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2000)

01983018

08-07-2000

Kenneth L. Thomas, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Southeast Area, Agency.


Kenneth L. Thomas v. United States Postal Service

01983018

August 7, 2000

.

Kenneth L. Thomas,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Southeast Area,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01983018

Agency No. 1-H-324-2014-93

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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405). Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on

the bases of race (Black) and color (Black) when on July 26, 1993,

he was placed in off-duty status.

BACKGROUND

During the relevant time, complainant was employed by the agency as a

Transitional Employee Clerk. On July 9, 1993, complainant and another

employee (CO-1) apparently became engaged in a confrontation in the

workplace. Complainant stated that CO-1 openly threatened him in front

of other employees. Complainant also stated that he was harassed and

challenged by CO-1 on more than one occasion. Thereafter, complainant

advised his supervisor and the Shop Steward that CO-1 was threatening him.

On the advice of the Shop Steward, complainant completed a sheriff's

report regarding the July 9, 1993 incident between himself and CO-1.

On July 12, 1993, CO-1 reported to the Human Resources Hotline that

complainant had physically assaulted him. Specifically, CO-1 alleged

that on July 2, 1993, complainant challenged him to fight and kicked him

in the shoulder while in the employee parking lot. On July 15, 1993,

CO-1 provided a statement regarding the alleged physical assault to the

Labor Relations Specialist (�Specialist�), who was instructed to pursue

the matter.

On July 15, 1993, the Specialist referred the matter involving the

July 2, 1993 physical assault to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

The Specialist also prepared a Letter of Instruction to the Tour

Administrator advising him that, on July 16, 1993, complainant should

be placed in off-duty status without pay pending completion of the

investigation of CO-1's allegation. The Specialist further instructed

that complainant should be interviewed on July 16, 1993, and then

instructed not to report to duty until notified.

Believing the agency had committed unlawful discrimination, complainant

sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on August

31, 1993. In essence, complainant contended that while he (Black

individual) was placed in off-duty status without pay, CO-1 (White

individual) remained in his position. The agency accepted the complaint

for processing, and at the conclusion of the investigation, complainant

was granted thirty days to either request a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge or receive a FAD from the agency. After failing to

respond within the appropriate time frame, the agency, on September 21,

1994, issued its FAD finding no discrimination. Complainant thereafter

appealed the FAD to this Commission.

On August 15, 1996, we issued a decision finding that the agency

failed to conduct a complete investigation of the issue in question.

Specifically, we found that while the Specialist indicated that she

routinely recommended suspensions in similar situations, the record

contained no evidence concerning: (1) the agency's routine practice

in similar situations; (2) the agency's regulations and/or policies

regarding suspending employees; and (3) the outcome of the U.S. Postal

Inspection Service's official investigation of the July 9, 1993 of the

incident. As a result, we ordered the agency to conduct a supplementary

EEO investigation and after the completion of the investigation, provide

complainant with his rights as to a hearing or another FAD. The agency

completed the supplementary investigation on November 15, 1996, and

accordingly advised complainant of his rights regarding the election

of a hearing or a FAD. After complainant withdrew his hearing request,

the agency issued its second FAD finding no discrimination.

The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of race discrimination because he presented no evidence to show that

similarly situated individuals not in his protected group were treated

differently under similar circumstances. The FAD further stated that,

even had complainant established a prima facie of discrimination, the

agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action,

namely, that the Specialist explained that placing complainant in off-duty

status was appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, FAD concluded

that complainant did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's

articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination.

ANALYSIS

After a careful review of the record and apply the standards set forth

in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission

finds that complainant failed to demonstrate that the agency's action

was motivated by unlawful racial discrimination. While we disagree with

the FAD and find that complainant established a prima facie case of race

discrimination,<2> we agree that the agency articulated a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for placing complainant in off-duty status

without pay (the commission of a physical assault on a fellow employee).

We note that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service's official investigation

found that the evidence supported that complainant had physically

assaulted CO-1 on July 2, 1993. We also note that the record, which

included affidavits from several witnesses, does not support complainant's

assertion that CO-1 threatened him on July 9, 1993. After reviewing

the initial investigation and the supplemental investigation, which

set forth the agency's policies for placing an employee in off-duty

status and provided information on other employees placed off-duty,

we find that the evidence does not demonstrate that the agency's

decision to place complainant in off-duty status was a product of race

discrimination. Therefore, it is decision of the Commission to AFFIRM

the FAD.

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

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 7, 2000

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.

2 Complainant established a prima facie case by demonstrating that he

(Black) was placed in off-duty status while CO-1 (White), also involved

in the altercation, was not similarly placed in off-duty status.