01990069
04-07-2000
Larry Barton, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.
Larry Barton v. United States Postal Service
01990069
April 7, 2000
Larry Barton, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01990069
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 1F915000198
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(Pacific/Western Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of race (Black) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant alleges he
was discriminated against when he was suspended from work for seven days.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to
be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Motor Vehicle Operator, at the agency's North Lincoln Avenue,
Pasadena, California facility. While operating an agency-owned vehicle
on duty, complainant was involved in an accident. It is undisputed that
complainant drove the vehicle in the wrong direction over a row of tire
spikes resulting in four flat tires. As discipline, complainant was
suspended from work for seven days.
Believing himself to be a victim of discrimination, complainant sought
EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on October 7, 1997.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant did not exercise
his option to a hearing. Accordingly, the agency issued a FAD on the
basis of the investigation.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race-based discrimination because he presented no evidence that
similarly situated individuals not in his protected classes were treated
differently under similar circumstances. The FAD found alternatively
that the agency had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action which complainant had failed to prove to be a pretext
designed to conceal discriminatory animus.
From the FAD, complainant brings the instant appeal.
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and its progeny, Texas Dept. of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981) and St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), the Commission agrees with
the agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race-based discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we note
that each of the comparator employees complainant identified worked in
different locations and in different crafts than complainant.
The Commission further finds that complainant failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's articulated reasons for
its actions were a pretext for discrimination. Complainant adduced no
evidence whatever to call into question the propriety of the agency's
disciplinary action.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we 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
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); 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).
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:
April 7, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.