01990043
04-20-2000
Randolph F. Crutchfield, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.
Randolph F. Crutchfield v. United States Postal Service
01990043
April 20, 2000
Randolph F. Crutchfield, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01990043
v. ) Agency No. 4D270003698
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his complaint 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> and �501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq .<2> The appeal is 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 mental disability and/or reprisal when on October 30, 1997,
he was placed in emergency off-duty status without pay for 14 days which
was converted to a 14 calendar day suspension.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Window Clerk at the agency's Greensboro District facility.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on February 4, 1998.
At the conclusion of the investigation, 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. Complainant did
not respond to the agency regarding his right to request a hearing or a
FAD without a hearing. The agency issued a decision without a hearing
from which complainant now appeals. In its FAD, the agency concluded
that complainant failed to make a prima facie case of disparate treatment
or establish a discriminatory motive based on mental disability and/or
physical disability and/or retaliation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973), Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d
292 (5th Cir. 1981)(applying McDonnell Douglas to disability cases),
and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)
(applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation cases), the Commission
agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish that he was
discriminated against and/or retaliated against.
In order to raise a disability discrimination claim under the
Rehabilitation Act, a complainant must establish that he is an "individual
with a disability" within the meaning of the statute. An "individual with
a disability" is one who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record
of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 29
C.F.R. �1630.2. Major life activities include activities such as caring
for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking,
breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(i). Complainant
must further demonstrate that he is a "qualified" individual with a
disability, meaning that he can perform the essential functions of
the "position such individual holds or desires." EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. �1630.2(m). For the purpose of our further analysis herein we
will assume that complainant is a qualified person with a disability.
To establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, a complainant
must show that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) the alleged
discriminating official was aware of the protected activity; (3) he was
adversely affected by an action of the agency contemporaneously with or
subsequent to the protected activity; and (4) there is a causal connection
between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Cook
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964367 (April 30,
1999). After consideration of the record, we find that complainant has
established a prima facie case of reprisal, as he previously filed an
EEO complaint against the very same agency official (AO) under agency
case numbers 4D-270-1109-96 and 4D-270-0006-97, and the 14 calender day
suspension followed the protected activity in such a time and manner
that a retaliatory motive could be inferred.<3>
Since we assume arguendo that complainant is a qualified person with
a disability and since complainant presented a prima facie case of
reprisal discrimination, the agency must articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason(s) for its actions. Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency
is successful, then the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the legitimate reason proffered by the agency was a
pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.
We find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason
for issuing the suspension. Our review of the record reveals an affidavit
from AO wherein she indicates that complainant completed and submitted
a falsified insurance application. According to AO, the insurance form
was submitted with falsified agency signatures. We find the affidavit
creditable and persuasive. The complainant has failed to present credible
evidence that this reason was a pretext for reprisal. Therefore, after a
careful review of the record and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, 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 20, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination.
2 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.
3 We clarify the agency's finding that the passing of 7 to 8 months,
between the prior EEO activity and the adverse action precludes the
existence of sufficient nexus between the protected activity and the
adverse employment action.