01986444
04-12-2000
Ron L. Stancil, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ron L. Stancil v. United States Postal Service
01986444
April 12, 2000
Ron L. Stancil, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986444
) Agency No. 1H-321-0054-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On August 24, 1998, Ron L. Stancil (the complainant) timely filed an
appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated July 16, 1998, and received by
him on August 1, 1998, 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> The Commission hereby
accepts the appeal 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 on appeal is whether the agency discriminated against
complainant based on reprisal (prior EEO activity) when he was denied
the opportunity to transfer to the maintenance craft.
BACKGROUND
Complainant was employed by the agency as a Mail Handler at the agency's
facility in Jacksonville, Florida. Complainant initiated EEO Counseling
on February 26, 1997. He filed a formal complaint on May 5, 1997,
alleging discrimination on the basis of reprisal when, on February 26,
1997, he was denied the opportunity to transfer to the maintenance craft.
The agency accepted the complaint for investigation and processing.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency issued a copy of its
investigative report and notified complainant of his right to request an
administrative hearing. After complainant failed to request a hearing,
the agency issued its FAD on July 16, 1998.
In its FAD, the agency found that the complainant had failed to
establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination because the
management official who did not consider complainant for a transfer to
the maintenance craft (the SO) was not aware of complainant's previous
EEO activity and was not involved in the activity. Additionally,
the FAD found that complainant had not proven the causal connection
between his EEO activity and the adverse action. The FAD further
stated that complainant had failed to establish that the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency for its decision was
a pretext for discrimination. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a
prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency
has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility
to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, a complainant must
show that: 1) he was engaged in protected activity; 2) the alleged
discriminating officials were aware of the protected activity; 3)
the complainant was subsequently subjected to adverse treatment;
and 4) the adverse action followed the protected activity within
such a period of time that retaliatory motivation may be inferred.
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976);
Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons,
842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir. 1988); Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 500
(6th Cir. 1987); Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940764
(December 15, 1994). In this case, the complainant showed that he was
involved in previous EEO activity and that he was told that he would
not be considered for a transfer to the maintenance craft. The SO,
however, did not know about complainant's previously filed EEO complaint
until approximately the fourth time the SO spoke to the complainant,
which was after the SO had already twice told the complainant that he
was ineligible for a transfer to the maintenance craft. Therefore,
the complainant has failed to put forth a prima facie case of retaliation.
Assuming arguendo that complainant had met his prima facie case of
retaliation, the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action. In his affidavit, the SO explained that he initially
turned the complainant's request for a transfer down because in order
to transfer to the maintenance craft, an employee had to have been in
the service of the agency for one year. At this point, complainant had
been in service for six months. The complainant repeated his requests
to the SO and was again told he would have to wait until after the
one year requirement was fulfilled before he would even be looked at
for a possible transfer. After the one year was up, the SO reviewed
the complainant's file in reference to all the criteria used to select
personnel for transfer into the maintenance craft. He found complainant
to be deficient in two of the criteria used for selection and informed
complainant at that time that he would not be considered for transfer.
Since the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate
that the agency's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
We find that complainant has failed to do so. Complainant did not
show that he was not deficient in the criteria the SO used in order
to evaluate employees for potential transfer to the maintenance craft.
He argued in conclusory terms that he had been discriminated against on
the basis of retaliation without showing that retaliation had motivated
the SO. Therefore, the agency's determination that complainant failed
to establish that he was discriminated against was correct.
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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:
April 12, 2000
______________ __________________________________
Date Carlton M. 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:
_______________ __________________________
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 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.