Robert O. Seagroves, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 6, 2000
01a03285 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 6, 2000)

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.