Pleas A. Thompson, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Southwest Area, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 11, 2000
01990681 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 11, 2000)

01990681

08-11-2000

Pleas A. Thompson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Southwest Area, Agency.


Pleas A. Thompson v. United States Postal Service

01990680; 01990681

.

Pleas A. Thompson,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Southwest Area,

Agency.

Appeal Nos. 01990680; 01990681

Agency Nos. 1-G-741-0007-97; 1-G-741-0008-97

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated appeals from two final agency decisions

concerning his complaints of unlawful employment discrimination in

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

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeals are accepted pursuant to 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of

retaliation when: (1) he received a �meets expectation� rating instead

of a �far exceeds� rating; and (2) his request to detail an employee

into a vacant position in his section was denied.

BACKGROUND

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a Manager, Maintenance Operations Support at the agency's

Tulsa, Oklahoma facility. Believing the agency had committed unlawful

discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently

filed two formal complaints on April 2, 1997. At the conclusion of the

investigations, complainant was informed of his right to request a hearing

before an EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final

decision by the agency. When complainant failed to make the election

within the requisite time period, the agency issued two final decisions,

each finding no discrimination.

In the final decision concerning complainant's evaluation, the agency

concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of

retaliation because he did not show a causal connection between his prior

EEO activity and his evaluation. The agency found that complainant's

supervisor credibly explained that the two comparison employees who

received �far exceed� ratings performed tasks that exceeded the normal

expectations of their positions, while complainant had not equally

performed such tasks. The agency concluded that complainant failed to

provide any evidence to support his allegation of retaliation.

In the final decision concerning the detail, the agency also concluded

that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation

because he did not show a causal connection between his prior EEO activity

and the agency's denial of his detail request. The agency concluded that

the record did not show that the denial of the request was a pretext to

mask unlawful retaliation.

ANALYSIS

Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant

failed to present evidence that more likely than not, the agency's

articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for retaliation.<2>

In reaching this conclusion, we note that regarding the evaluation,

complainant's supervisor was the concurring official for the evaluations

of the cited comparators and he rated all the supervisors at complainant's

level as �meets expectations.�<3> We thus find that the cited comparators

are not similarly situated to complainant in that their performance

was reviewed by different supervisors. See Godby v. Department of the

Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05960220 (May 7, 1998). Moreover, we find

that other than complainant's bare assertion of retaliation, the record

contains no credible evidence demonstrating that his evaluation rating

was in retaliation for his prior EEO activity.

Regarding the detail, we note that complainant's supervisor was

informed that the individual requested by complainant did not meet

the qualifications of the position due to the requirements of the union

contract. As a result, complainant's supervisor advised complainant that

he could not detail the individual into the position. Complainant failed

to demonstrate that his supervisor allowed other supervisors to circumvent

the union contract to detail employees into positions. Moreover, we

find that complainant failed to provide any credible evidence that his

supervisor's denial of detail was for any reason other than above-stated

explanation. Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including

arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, it

is the decision of the Commission to affirm both of the agency's final

decisions.

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

__________________

Date

(FOR OFO MERIT CASES) (INTERNAL CIRCULATION

ONLY)

INITIAL

DATE

TO: CARLTON M. HADDEN

TO: HILDA RODRIGUEZ

APPEAL NUMBER

01990680; 01990681

AGENCY NUMBER

1-G-741-0007-97; 1-G-741-0008-97

REQUEST NUMBER

HEARING NUMBER

THE ATTACHED DECISION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

TITLE

NAMES

INITIAL

DATE REVIEWED

(ATTORNEY):

Dexter Brooks

August 11, 2000

(SUPERVISOR):

Gail Demers

(DIVISION DIRECTOR):

Robbie Dix III

COMPLAINANT(S):

Pleas A. Thompson

AGENCY:

United States Postal Service

DECISION:

AFFIRMED

STATUTE(S) ALLEGED:

Title VII

BASIS(ES) ALLEGED:

OR

ISSUE(S) ALLEGED:

T2, A3, 01

WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS FOUND (ONLY):

(A) BASIS(ES) FOR FINDING:

(B) ISSUES IN FINDING:

TYPIST/DATE/DISKETTE

DB7 / August 11, 2000 /p:fy00

SPELL CHECK

YES

TEAM PROOFED

DATE

(CHECK ALL APPLICABLE CODES)

MERIT DECISION

MERIT DECISION (CONTINUED)

X 4A - MERITS DECISION

? 4B - OFO FOUND DISCRIMINATION

LIST BASIS CODES:__________________________________

LIST ISSUE CODES:__________________________________

X 4C - OFO FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION

? 4R - OFO FOUND SETTLEMENT BREACH

? 4S - OFO FOUND NO SETTLEMENT BREACH

? 4E - AGENCY FOUND DISCR./BREACH

X 4F - AGENCY FOUND NO DISCR./BREACH

X 4H - OFO AFFIRMED AGENCY

? 4I - OFO REVERSED AGENCY

? 4J - OFO MODIFIED AGENCY:

(NOTE): IF AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN

PART, THEN (3L) CODE REQUIRED IF AT LEAST

ONE ISSUE IS REMANDED.

? 3L - OFO REMANDED PART OF AGENCY'S MERITS

DECISION. IF BREACH IS BASIS, USE OF (3L) ALSO

REQUIRES (4I) CODE.

? 3P - ADVERSE INFERENCE

? 4K - AJ FOUND DISCRIMINATION

? 4L - AJ FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION

? 4M - AJ MADE NO FINDING

? 4N - OFO AFFIRMED AJ

? 4O - OFO REVERSED AJ

? 4P - OFO MODIFIED AJ

? 4T - AJ ISSUED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION

? 4U - OFO AFFIRMED AJ SUMMARY JUDGMENT

? 4V - OFO REVERSED AJ SUMMARY JUDGMENT

? 3H - OFO DENIED ATTORNEYS FEES

? 3I - OFO APPROVED ATTORNEYS FEES

? 3J - OFO MODIFIED ATTORNEYS FEES

? 4Q - COMPLIANCE REQUIRED

REVISED - (2/3/00)

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 While the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima

facie case of retaliation in either complaint, we find that complainant

has established prima facie cases of retaliation. Complainant may

establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that: (1) he

engaged in Title VII protected activity; (2) the agency was aware of

his protected activity; (3) subsequently, he was subjected to adverse

treatment by the agency; and (4) the adverse treatment in question

followed the protected activity within such a period of time that a

retaliatory motivation may be inferred. In this case, complainant

presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie cases of

retaliation in that he participated in recent protected activity which

his supervisor was aware of during the relevant time. However, like the

agency, we find that the supervisor articulated legitimate reasons for

the actions which were not shown to be pretext for unlawful retaliation.

3 The two comparators cited by complainant were lower level supervisors

for whom complainant's supervisor was the second-level supervisor.