01986182
03-07-2000
Larry B. Steele, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Larry B. Steele v. United States Postal Service
01986182
March 7, 2000
Larry B. Steele, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986182
v. ) Agency No. 4-I-530-1175-94
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on
the bases of reprisal (prior EEO activity) and age (DOB: 02/21/54), in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 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).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly found that complainant
failed to show by preponderant evidence that the agency's action was
discriminatory.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Plant Manager, at the agency's Kingsford Plant facility,
in Kingsford, Michigan. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against when he was reassigned from the position of Plant Manager on
August 18, 1994, based on his age and reprisal.<2>
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on June 12, 1996. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the agency
issue a final agency decision (FAD).
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish prima facie
cases of age and reprisal discrimination when he failed to show that
the agency's action was based on a discriminatory motive. Further,
the FAD found that assuming arguendo that complainant had established a
prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Therefore, the agency found
that complainant failed to show that the agency discriminated against
him on the bases of age and reprisal.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency based its decision on
discrepancies of the true facts. The agency requests that we affirm
its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Generally, discrimination claims are examined under the tripartite
analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). See Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F. 2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979). Complainant must first establish a prima facie case of
discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably
give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited
consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567
(1978). Next, the agency offers rebuttal to complainant's inference of
discrimination by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action(s). See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); see also United States Postal Serv. Bd. of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983). Once the agency has
met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate burden to persuade the
fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered
by the agency were not the true reasons for its actions but rather
were a pretext for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Cent. v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993). Under the ADEA, the complainant must show that
her age was a determining factor in the agency's removal action, that
is, considerations of age made a difference in the agency's action.
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610 (1993) (age had "a role
in the process and a determinative influence on the outcome").
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses on
whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether he or she has demonstrated
by preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its
actions merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id. See also Aikens,
Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that the agency stated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. The agency stated
that complainant's position as Manager, Customer Services was abolished
and he was appointed Acting Plant Manager. Complainant retained that
position until July 5, 1994, when he was replaced by another individual.
The Selecting Official (SO) averred that complainant was not selected as
Plant Manager because he was not considered to be the best qualified.
The Commission finds that the agency has offered a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action.
Once the agency has provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its action, the burden shifts to complainant to prove that the agency's
legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination. Upon review of the
record, complainant averred that the SO wanted "new, younger blood" at
the agency's facility which complainant interpreted as a preference for
younger individuals. The SO denied using this expression. Based upon
the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Commission finds
no evidence of discriminatory animus, and complainant has presented no
evidence which would cause the Commission to conclude that age or reprisal
was the true basis for the agency's actions. Therefore, the Commission
finds that complainant was not discriminated against based upon his age
or prior EEO activity when he was reassigned from the manager position.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the decision of the agency was
proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
March 7, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
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 The record indicates that complainant had filed EEO Case
No. 4-I-530-1094-94 on September 18, 1994.