Reuben Hernandez, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency,

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 21, 2000
01986146 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 21, 2000)

01986146

04-21-2000

Reuben Hernandez, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency,


Reuben Hernandez v. United States Postal Service

01986146

April 21, 2000

Reuben Hernandez, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01986146

) Agency No. 4E-852-0007-98

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency, )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (Commission) from a final agency decision 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> Accordingly, the appeal is accepted in accordance with 64

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

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether the agency discriminated against

complainant on the basis of national origin (Hispanic)<2> when he

was issued a Notice of Removal and terminated from his probationary

employment.

BACKGROUND

Complainant was a probationary Part-Time Letter Carrier at the Downtown

Station, Phoenix, Arizona. The agency notified complainant on September

23, 1997, that he would be terminated because he was rated unsatisfactory

in his work quality and quantity on his 30, 60 and 80 day evaluations.

The agency stated that complainant failed to make necessary improvements.

The Acting Manager (Manager) averred that he terminated complainant

based on documents from three supervisors who each successively monitored

complainant.<3> The documents reveal that complainant was counseled on

a safety violation, mis-deliveries, putting first and second class mail

in a throw-away bin, and leaving mail overnight in an unlocked vehicle.

The Manager stated that he recommended hiring complainant for a craft

other than letter carrier.

Complainant averred that he was not told he mis-delivered mail and

was not retrained. He stated that he passed his first casing test.

Complainant also stated that a white co-worker mis-delivered mail yet

passed his probationary period. The Manager stated that the co-worker

improved. The Investigative Report notes that three Caucasian and one

Black letter carriers were also terminated during their probationary

period while four Hispanic and one Caucasian letter carrier successfully

completed the period.

The agency issued a final decision finding that complainant failed to

prove a prima facie case because he was unable to show that he was treated

differently than similarly situated employees. The agency also found

that, assuming arguendo that complainant stated a prima facie case, the

agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action.

Complainant appealed.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of

burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging

discrimination is a three-step process. Complainant has the initial burden

of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. If complainant

meets this burden, the burden shifts to the agency to articulate

some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged action.

Complainant must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

the legitimate reason articulated by the agency was a pretext for

discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

This established order of analysis, in which the first step normally

consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not

be followed in all cases. Where the agency articulates a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the actions at issue, the factual inquiry can

proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis,

that is, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a

preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated

by discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); See also U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors

v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983).

The Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, i.e., complainant

mis-delivered mail, put mail in a throw away bin, and received poor 30,

60 and 80 day evaluations. The Manager based his decision on the reports

of three supervisors who monitored and counseled complainant.<4>

The burden returns to complainant to demonstrate that the agency's

reason was a pretext for discrimination, that is, that the agency was

more likely motivated by discriminatory reasons. Burdine, 450 U.S. at

253. Complainant provided no evidence in support of his claim that the

agency terminated him based on his national origin. The record reveals

that four Hispanic employees were retained after their probation while

three Caucasian and one Black employees were not. Complainant fails to

prove that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees

based on national origin and has not proven that the agency's articulated

reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the agency is proper and is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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 21, 2000

________________________ _______________________

DATE Carlton Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_________________________ __________________________

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 Complainant listed race (Hispanic) as the basis for his complaint.

The Commission considers Hispanic to be a national origin rather than

a race.

3 One of the three supervisors monitored complainant for one month

before being detailed to another station. The agency could not locate

her notes in complainant's file, but she spoke with the Manager and

relayed her evaluation.

4 One supervisor who counseled complainant twice on mis-deliveries

averred that he believed complainant would have performed better if he

worked on one rather than several routes during his probationary period.