0120111970
08-12-2011
Morris I. Gandy, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.
Morris I. Gandy,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111970
Agency No. 1C-191-0007-10
DECISION
On February 25, 2011, Complainant timely filed an appeal with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from
the Agency’s February 3, 2011, final decision concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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. The Commission accepts the appeal
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether Complainant was discriminated against based on his race
(African-American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when beginning
in December 2009, he was assigned lower tasked duties by his supervisor.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as
an Electronic Technician, PS-10 at the Agency’s Philadelphia Processing
& Distribution Center facility in Philadelphia, PA.
He filed an EEO complaint dated March 15, 2010, alleging the above issue.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. After Complainant
did not request a hearing, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) finding no discrimination.
As an Electronics Technician, PS-10, Complainant’s duties include
carrying out all phases of maintenance, troubleshooting, and testing of
electronic circuitry used in equipment and systems requiring a knowledge
of solid state electronics. Complainant stated that from December 2009
onward, he was assigned to work on the Image Processing Sub-System (IPSS),
Robot Containerization Systems (RCS), Advanced Flats Sorting Machines
(AFSM), and the Computerized Forwarding System (CFS). He contended
CFS is a lower tasked duty, and he was assigned to it on various dates.
He conceded that CFS is part of his job description or assignment.
Complainant’s direct supervisor, the Supervisor of Maintenance
Operations, stated he assigned job duties to Complainant from December
2009 onward. He stated he assigned him to the CFS, RCS, AFSM100
and Computer Room based on his training and the needs of the Agency.
He wrote that Complainant was trained on the CFS, and that a number of
years ago said he wanted to work on CFS. The supervisor believed this
was related to overtime opportunities. The supervisor stated he was at
a loss to understand why working on CFS became an EEO issue. The Acting
Manager of Maintenance Operations stated the supervisor assigns tasks
daily based on the equipment to be worked on, training requirements
for that equipment, and which employees are available at the time.
Complainant was paid at the Electronic Technician PS-10 wage level,
regardless of the task he performed.
In its final decision, the Agency found that Complainant did not make
out a prima facie case of race discrimination because he did not show he
was subjected to an adverse action or disparately treated. The Agency
found that Complainant’s supervisor was aware of Complainant’s prior
EEO activity, but there was no prima facie of reprisal discrimination
because Complainant was not subjected to an adverse action. The Agency
found that assuming for the sake of argument that Complainant made out a
prima facie case of race and reprisal discrimination, management explained
that Complainant was assigned to CFS based on his training and the needs
of the service. It found that the duties of an Electronic Technician,
PS-10, include performing all phases of maintenance, troubleshooting and
testing of electronic circuitry used in equipment and systems. The Agency
found that Complainant failed to prove pretext or discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He must
generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would
support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with
in this case, however, since the Agency has articulated legitimate
and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal
Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley
v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997).
To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000);
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep’t
of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley, supra;
Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).
Complainant’s supervisor explained that he assigned Complainant to CFS
and other assignments based on his training and the needs of the service.
The Acting Manager of Maintenance Operations stated the supervisor assigns
tasks daily based on the equipment to be worked on, training requirements
for that equipment, and which employees are available at the time.
Complainant does not deny that CFS is part of his position description
or assignment. He does not explain why he views CFS as a lower level
assignment, or how it limits his opportunities. Complainant also
performs other assignments. Complainant has failed to show that the
Agency’s reasons for assigning him to CFS, among other assignments,
are pretext to mask discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding
of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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 12, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120111970
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111970