01a03285
07-06-2000
Robert O. Seagroves, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robert O. Seagroves v. United States Postal Service
01A03285
July 6, 2000
Robert O. Seagroves, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01A03285
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 4D-270-0012-98
Postmaster General, ) Hearing No. 140-98-8361
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the Commission) from the final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his allegation that the agency discriminated against him in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted by the Commission in
accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<2> For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM
the agency's final action.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether complainant proved that he was
discriminated against on the basis of his race (Black) when on September
9, 1997, he was denied a transfer to the Greensboro Bulk Mail Center
and a mutual swap to the Greensboro Post Office due to his supervisor's
disclosure of negative information concerning him.
BACKGROUND
Complainant filed a formal complaint on January 10, 1998. Following an
investigation, he was provided a copy of the investigative file and
notified of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing, but the AJ decided that a
decision without a hearing would be appropriate. After notifying the
parties, on December 27, 1999, the AJ issued a decision finding that
complainant had not been discriminated against. On February 10, 2000,
the agency issued a Notice of Final Action that implemented the decision
of the AJ. It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.
Complainant did not offer any new contentions on appeal.
At the time of his complaint, complainant served as a Custodial Laborer,
PS-03, assigned to the Burlington, North Carolina Post Office.
In August 1997, he requested either a transfer to the Greensboro
Bulk Mail Center (BMC) or a mutual swap to the Greensboro Main Post
Office. Complainant wanted to work closer to his home because he
was experiencing transportation problems. As part of the transfer
process, A-1, complainant's supervisor, was asked to complete a request
for information form and an evaluation of complainant's performance.
A-1 was asked whether complainant had ever required corrective action.
He responded that complainant had been issued a Letter of Warning and
a Notice of Removal in 1996.<3> With respect to the evaluation, A-1
indicated, among other things, that complainant was below average in the
area of safety and that his attendance was �better since he got a good
car.� After this information was received, complainant was informed
that his request for a transfer to the BMC was denied because of his
disciplinary record and A-1's overall evaluation. Because his transfer
was denied, complainant's alternate request, for a mutual swap to the
Greensboro Main Post Office, was also disapproved.
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant established a prima facie case
of race discrimination, the AJ found that the agency articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, i.e., A-1 testified
that he was asked for any disciplinary information regarding complainant
during the past two years. The AJ, noting complainant's contention
that he did not think the removal action would be considered because he
thought it had been removed from his files pursuant to the MSPB settlement
agreement, found no persuasive evidence of pretext.<4>
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final
action because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without
a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence
does not establish that discrimination occurred.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the agency's
final action.
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:
_07-06-00_______ __________________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1The record does not contain any evidence that would establish
the date that complainant received the agency's final decision;
therefore, the Commission will assume that complainant filed his appeal
within the 30-day time limitation period.
2On 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.
3The removal was subsequently reduced to a 30-day suspension pursuant
to an October 18, 1996 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) settlement
agreement.
4As noted by the AJ, the settlement agreement made no mention of when
notice of the removal action would be removed from complainant's files.