01a22823_r
10-09-2002
Ronnie J. Allen, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ronnie J. Allen v. United States Postal Service
01A22823
October 9, 2002
.
Ronnie J. Allen,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A22823
Agency No. 1-G-708-0057-99
Hearing No. 270-A1-9009X
DECISION
The record indicates that complainant filed an appeal from the
agency's final action 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. In his complaint,
complainant, a PTF Flat Sorting Machine Operator (PS-05), alleged that
he was discriminated against based on race (Black) and sex (male) when
on March 11, 1999, he became aware that other supervisors, Customer
Services, received their Economic Value Added (EVA) payments for FY
1998, whereas he did not, following his demotion to the craft.<1> The
record indicates that at the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ,
after a hearing, issued a bench decision finding no discrimination.
The AJ determined that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination on the bases of race and sex. The AJ further concluded
that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its action. Complainant's supervisor testified that she prevented
complainant from receiving the EVA check because his performance had
been rated �unacceptable,� and he fell within an exclusion to the EVA.
A Postmaster also testified that the guidelines for determining if a
person was eligible for an EVA were: disciplinary action, conduct, and
an unacceptable EAS rating. The Postmaster added that the important
factor in the EVA was whether the person contributed to helping the
organization succeed because the EVA was meant to encourage teamwork.
The AJ pointed out in the decision that complainant was, previously,
issued two letters of warning on December 18, 1997, and September 18,
1998, on both occasions, for failure to properly perform his duties.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.
Complainant makes no new persuasive contentions on appeal.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is
hereby AFFIRMED because a preponderance of the record evidence does not
establish that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
October 9, 2002
__________________
Date
1The record indicates that on December 5,
1998, complainant was demoted from Supervisor, Customer Service and Sales
(EAS-16) to his present position as a PTF Flat Sorting Machine Operator
(PS-05). This demotion action was, subsequently, affirmed by the Merit
Systems Protection Board on April 16, 1999. The instant case does not
concern the demotion action.