Levi M. Daniel, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 12, 2000
01a03284 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 12, 2000)

01a03284

07-12-2000

Levi M. Daniel, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Levi M. Daniel v. United States Postal Service

01A03284

07-12-00

Levi M. Daniel, )

Complainant, )

)

v. )

) Appeal No. 01A03284

William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 1D-251-0020-98

Postmaster General, ) Hearing No. 170-99-8103X

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (the Commission) from the final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his allegation that the agency discriminated against him

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted by the Commission in

accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at

29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1> For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM

the FAD.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether complainant proved that he was

discriminated against on the bases of his race (Black) and/or in

reprisal for filing a prior EEO complaint when on April 11, 1998, the

agency failed to transfer him to a facility in Beckley, West Virginia.

BACKGROUND

Complainant filed a formal complaint in July 1998. Following an

investigation, he was provided a copy of the investigative file and

notified of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing, but the AJ decided that

a decision without a hearing would be appropriate. After notifying

the parties, on January 6, 2000, the AJ issued a decision finding that

complainant had not been discriminated against. On February 22, 2000,

the agency issued a Notice of Final Action that implemented the decision

of the AJ. It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

Complainant did not offer any new contentions on appeal.

At the time of his complaint, complainant served as a PS-5, Registry Room

Clerk (Mail-Handler) in Charleston, West Virginia. On October 15, 1997,

complainant requested a transfer from his position to a 204B supervisory

position at the Beckley, West Virginia Post Office. On October 15, 1997,

A-1, Postmaster of the Beckley Post Office, informed complainant that

there were no openings, but that his request would be kept on file.

On February 16, 1998, complainant again wrote A-1 regarding another

position. This request was also denied.

On April 11, 1998, A-1 decided to fill four Distribution/Window Clerk

positions by going to the hiring register and not by granting transfer

requests. He noted that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the

Union required that one out of every four vacancies (25%) had to be

filled with transfer employees if available. The record at Beckley,

however, was that six of the past fourteen vacancies (43%) were filled

by transferees.<2> Because he had exceeded the standards set forth in

the MOU, A-1 testified that he decided to go to the hiring register in

order to fill his vacancies. A-1 also indicated that he felt that those

who took the postal exam and got on the register deserved an opportunity

for postal employment.

According to A-1, �all new hires from the register are processed and

selected through the district office and neither [he] nor anyone else

in Beckley has any say in that selection process, however, they are

hired according to the score they made on the postal exam.� The four

individuals selected, on April 11, 1998, were B-1 (white), B-2 (white),

B-3 (white), and B-4 (white). A-1 stated that complainant was not

the only person whose transfer request was denied. He noted that the

transfer requests of D-1 (black), D-2 (white), D-3 (white), D-4 (white),

and D-5 (white) were also denied. Finally, A-1 testified that he was

not aware of complainant's previous EEO activity or his race prior to

this complaint.

According to the AJ, complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of reprisal discrimination. Although he established that he engaged in

prior protected activity, complainant was unable to show that A-1, who

made the decision not to grant his transfer request, was aware of this.

The AJ, in noting that A-1 was the Postmaster in Beckley and that

complainant worked in Charleston, found that there was no evidence

A-1 knew or should have known of complainant's protected activity.

With respect to complainant's claim of discrimination based on race,

the AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate non-discriminatory

reasons for not transferring the complainant and that complainant failed

to show that the agency's reasons were pretextual.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final

action because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without

a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence

does not establish that discrimination occurred.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the agency's

final action.

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).

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:

__07-12-00_______ __________________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1On 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.

2A-1 testified that he did not consider race, sex, or physical disability

when reviewing and/or approving transfer requests. As examples, he

indicated that he filled six positions by accepting transfer requests

from C-1 (white), C-2 (white), C-3 (black), C-4 (black), C-5 (white),

and C-6 (white).