Lawrence T. Carter, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 29, 1999
01977090 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 29, 1999)

01977090

10-29-1999

Lawrence T. Carter, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.


Lawrence T. Carter, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01977090

v. ) Agency No. 1F943102196

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Pacific/Western Region), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final

agency decision (FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), and

reprisal (prior EEO activity), in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Appellant

alleges he was discriminated against in July 1996 when a supervisor and a

co-worker collaborated in making false statements regarding his character,

causing his co-workers to treat him with animosity and creating a hostile

work environment. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order

No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the agency's decision is VACATED

and REMANDED.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed

as a Clerk at the agency's Air Mail Facility in San Francisco, California.

In his capacity as a Union Stewart, appellant was involved in a conflict

where a mentally challenged co-worker accused a supervisor of sexual

harassment. In the course of the investigation, appellant alleges

that his supervisor (S1), and the co-worker (CW) falsely accused him of

conspiracy and fraud, and that CW made a false and defamatory writing

against him with full knowledge and acquiesce of S1. Appellant sought

EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on October

23, 1996. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant was issued

a FAD, finding no discrimination.

In its FAD, the agency concluded that appellant failed to establish a

prima facie case of race or sex discrimination, noting that appellant

did not present evidence that he was treated differently than similarly

situated individuals not within his protected classes. The FAD also

held that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal

because he did not demonstrate a nexus between his instant allegations

and his prior protected activity. Additionally, the FAD found that

appellant failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to a hostile

work environment. The FAD further noted that S1 �credibly testified�

that she did not make the false accusations in question, and that CW

did not make a false and derogatory written statement against appellant.

Based on this determination, the FAD held that the agency had articulated

a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reason for its actions.

On appeal, appellant contends, among other things, that the agency's

investigation was inadequate because only two witnesses were interviewed,

S1 and a co-worker who allegedly witnessed the act of sexual harassment.

Appellant argues that the agency deemed S1's testimony as credible,

and based its determination upon her statements without question or

corroborating evidence, despite the fact that she was the alleged

discriminating management official and her testimony was likely to be

self-serving. Appellant further contends that his claim of a hostile work

environment was not investigated, and that none of the witnesses appellant

identified were contacted by the investigator<1>. Appellant further

opines that the poor investigation may be the result of investigator bias.

The agency stands on the record and requests that we affirm its FAD.

With respect to the agency's prima facie case determination regarding

reprisal, we note that the FAD fails to indicate why it found that

appellant had not established the required �nexus.� Our review of the

record shows that appellant contacted an EEO counselor approximately one

year prior to the instant matter, concerning the conduct of both S1 and CW

in a race based incident, and that appellant alleges that the controversy

concerning this matter has been on-going between himself and S1 and CW.

Therefore, we find that this is sufficient to establish the �nexus� and a

prima facie case of reprisal. See Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for

Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545

F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) and Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request

No. 05940764 (December 15, 1994).

With respect to the race and sex prima facie case determinations in the

FAD, we note that the �McDonnell Douglas� comparative evidence analysis

used by the agency is inappropriate because of the likely impossibility

of identifying similarly situated individuals (i.e.,�union stewards�)

who were subjected to false accusations and a hostile work environment

because of race or sex.<2> See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973) and Hunter v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 01960762

(October 1, 1998). In situations like this, it is well established

that the �inference of discrimination� may be shown some other way. See

Scura V. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 01965021 (October 8,

1998)(citing Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567,576

(1978)). In his affidavit, appellant testified that he perceived racial

and sexual animus against him as a Black male on the part of S1 and

CW, who are both Hispanic and female, alleging that they are often in

collusion for the purpose of manipulating and exploiting postal employees

working at the facility who were not of their race and sex. We note also

that appellant's prior EEO contact dealt with a race based allegation

involving both S1 and CW. Therefore, we find that appellant's statements

are sufficient to create an inference of sex and race discrimination

and that he has thereby established a prima face case on these bases.

Although we find that the evidence of record is adequate to make the above

determinations, we conclude that the evidence is otherwise insufficient

to allow a determination on the merits of appellant's allegations of

discrimination in this case.

Our regulations and the EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part

1614 require agencies to develop a complete and impartial factual

record. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(b) and EEOC Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614, EEO-MD-110, at 5-1 (October 22, 1992). As noted

by appellant on appeal, the investigator failed to contact witnesses

who could provide information regarding the alleged collusive behavior

and animus of S1 and CW, the false accusations as claimed by appellant,

and appellant's work environment at the facility. Furthermore, we find

that S1's credibility cannot be determined without further evidentiary

development, and that it was inappropriate for the FAD to find her

testimony credible and base a finding of no discrimination on essentially

no more than her statements alone. This is particularly true where, as

here, appellant has given the names of relevant witnesses who allegedly

have observed the discriminatory behavior in question.

We therefore VACATE the agency's finding of no discrimination, and

REMAND this matter for a supplemental investigation in accordance with

the following ORDER, and the applicable EEOC Regulations.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to conduct a supplemental investigation, which

shall include the following actions:

1. Due to appellant's allegation of investigator bias, the agency shall

appoint another investigator to conduct the supplemental investigation.

2. The agency shall ensure that the investigator contact all witnesses

identified by appellant and obtain affidavit testimony regarding the

following: the alleged collusive behavior and animus of S1 and CW;

whether, or in what manner, S1 or CW made the false accusations against

appellant; and, a description of appellant's work environment at the

facility, including a reference to whether, or to what extent, appellant

was subjected to a hostile work environment.

3. The agency shall ensure that the investigator obtain any other

affidavits, records or statistics not specifically requested in this

ORDER, and not inconsistent with this decision, which may be informative

regarding the inquiries set forth in #2 above or otherwise relevant in

determining the veracity of appellant's complaint allegations.

4. The agency shall ensure that the investigator complete a supplemental

investigation within one-hundred and twenty (120) calendar days of

the date this decision becomes final. Thereafter, the agency shall

provide the appellant, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date

the agency completes the supplemental investigation, an opportunity to

respond to the supplemental investigative report. The agency shall then

take any action appropriate and consistent with appellant's response,

and issue a new final agency decision within thirty (30) calendar days of

appellant's response or, if appellant fails to respond, within thirty (30)

calendar days following the last day appellant would have been permitted

to respond. Copies of the completed supplemental investigation and

new final agency decision must be submitted to the Compliance Officer,

as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall

be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington,

D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,

and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the appellant.

If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the appellant

may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(a). The appellant also has the right to file a civil action

to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following

an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408,

1614.409, and 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the appellant has the right to

file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the

paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. ��

1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action

on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42

U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the appellant files a civil

action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any

petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the

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 the

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. � 1614.604(c).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court. 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. In the alternative,

you may file a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR

DAYS of the date you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your

appeal with the Commission. 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.

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:

October 29, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations1We note that the

Report of Investigation indicates that one

other witness, the supervisor accused of sexual

harassment, was contacted by the investigator,

but did not respond. However, it does not appear

that the investigator made any follow-up inquiry

or further attempt to obtain an affidavit from

this witness.

2According to appellant's allegations, it was in the context of his

role and activities as a union steward which provided S1 and CW with

the opportunity to make false accusations against him, but that the

motivation itself was not based on his union association, but rather

upon animus toward his race and sex.