Ronald J. Longsdorf, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 9, 2000
01a05806 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 9, 2000)

01a05806

11-09-2000

Ronald J. Longsdorf, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny), Agency.


Ronald J. Longsdoft v. United States Postal Service

01A05806

November 9, 2000

.

Ronald J. Longsdorf,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Allegheny),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A05806

Agency No. 4C-150-0052-99

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning his 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> The appeal is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated

against on the bases of sex (male), age (DOB: 10/25/50), and reprisal

(prior EEO activity), when he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW)

for Failure to Follow Instructions.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed

as a Distribution Clerk, at the agency's Youngwood, Pennsylvania facility.

Complainant requested, and was granted, sick leave on February 2, 1999.

Complainant then called in sick on February 3 and 4, 1999. On February 4,

1999, the Supervisor of Distribution Operations (SDO) called complainant

at home and requested that he submit medical documentation for his

illness upon his return to work on February 5, 1999.

When complainant returned to work on February 5, 1999 without medical

documentation, the SDO against requested that he submit documentation.

On February 18, 1999, complainant submitted to the SDO a photo-copy of a

label from his non-prescription pain medication to support his illness.

Finding this was unacceptable medical documentation, the SDO issued

complainant the Letter of Warning.<2>

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on May 7, 1999.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed

of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency.

When complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in

29 C.F.R. � 1614, the agency issued a final decision.

In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish

a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases. Specifically,

the agency found that individuals outside of complainant's protected

classes were also required to submit medical documentation following sick

leave absences. Furthermore, the agency found it articulated legitimate

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that it issued the

Letter of Warning when complainant failed to submit appropriate medical

documentation in support of his sick leave absences.

On appeal, complainant contends that the SDO issued the Letter of Warning

in retaliation for his prior EEO activity, and because the SDO did not

believe he was ill while he was on sick leave. The agency requests that

we affirm its FAD.

Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792 (1973); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d

292, 310 (5th Cir. 1981); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)

(requiring a showing that age was a determinative factor, in the sense

that "but for" age, complainant would not have been subject to the

adverse action at issue); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for

Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,

545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal

cases), the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed

to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases because

he failed to establish an inference of discrimination.

The Commission further finds that complainant failed to present evidence

that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its

actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching this conclusion,

we note that complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the

agency's reasons lacked credence, or that it acted with a discriminatory

motive.

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 9, 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.

2According to the agency and complainant, the Letter of Warning was

eventually removed from complainant's personnel file per a union grievance

settlement at Step 1