Robert E. Aparicio, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 21, 2000
01a05870 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 21, 2000)

01a05870

11-21-2000

Robert E. Aparicio, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.


Robert E. Aparicio v. United States Postal Service

01A05870

November 21, 2000

.

Robert E. Aparicio,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Pacific/Western Region),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A05870

Agency No. 1F-941-0054-99

Hearing No. 370-99-2689X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful 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.<1>

Complainant alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of his race

(Hispanic) when on April 12, 1999, management informed him that he was

terminated. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a Clerk at the agency's Burlingame, California, facility.

A review of the record establishes that complainant's supervisor (S1;

African-American) had concerns about complainant's work performance

and reputed habit of taking extended breaks, and held a meeting with

complainant to discuss his concerns. S1 alleged that during the meeting

held on January 30, 1999, complainant became violent, used abusive and

racist language towards S1 and kicked the conference room door with

such force that it cracked.<2> See Investigative Report at 6. On April

12, 1999, S1 issued complainant a Notice of Removal (Notice) informing

him that his employment with the agency would be terminated on May 25,

1999, citing complainant's conduct on January 30, 1999. Believing he

was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and

subsequently filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on June 10,

1999.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided a

copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,

finding no discrimination. The AJ found that there was no evidence to

support complainant's claim that the agency was motivated by his race

when it terminated him and thus, complainant failed to demonstrate a

prima facie case of discrimination. In so finding, the AJ noted that

complainant did not dispute that he engaged in the conduct alleged by S1

in the Notice. The AJ also noted that complainant's evidence alleging

disparate treatment failed to raise an inference of discrimination, as

none of the comparison employees cited by complainant were similarly

situated. The AJ further found that there was nothing in the record

which suggested that in spite of complainant's violent behavior, S1

was motivated by complainant's race when he terminated his behavior.

The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant

makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we

affirm its final decision.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the

AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced

the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We agree with the

AJ's finding that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of race discrimination. The record establishes that the comparison

employees cited by complainant were not similarly situated, and there

is no other evidence which raises an inference of discrimination. We

agree with the AJ that the sole reason for complainant's termination

was his abusive and racist behavior directed at S1 on January 30, 1999.

We thus discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after

a careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions on

appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically

addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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

November 21, 2000

Date

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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 Complainant has not disputed that he directed profanity and racially

insensitive comments towards S1 during the January 30, 1999 meeting,

although he contends that the breaking of the door was accidental.