Rufus G.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 20160120142395 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Rufus G.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 0120142395 Agency No. 1C-191-0019-13 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s May 19, 2014 final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND Complainant worked as a Postal Support Employee (PSE) - Custodian at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On November 22, 2013, he filed an EEO complaint in which he alleged that the Maintenance Operations Manager (MOS) and other officials discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), religion (Muslim), and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) by separating him on July 22, 2013, without reappointing him for another 360-day term. At the conclusion of the ensuing investigation, the Agency notified Complainant of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame prescribed in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), in which it concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. 1This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 0120142395 2 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission cannot second-guess an Agency’s decisions involving personnel unless there is evidence of a discriminatory motivation on the part of the officials responsible for making those decisions. See Texas Department of Community. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259 (1981). Put another way, the laws that the Commission enforces cannot prevent an employer from making decisions with which its employees disagree unless those decisions are rooted in a statutorily proscribed motivation. See Joni M. v. Department of Homeland Security – Transportation Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120142884 (February 1, 2016). On July 22, 2013, Complainant received written notice from the MOS that his employment would end that day, and that he would not be reappointed. Investigative Report (IR) 229, 236. Both the MOS and the Maintenance Operations Manager (MOM) who concurred in the decision averred that Complainant was a difficult employee who failed to follow instructions and displayed hostility toward his coworkers and his chain of command. IR 177, 191-92. Given these circumstances, Complainant, in order to prevail, would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that MOS and the other officials involved in his termination were motivated by unlawful considerations of his race, gender, religion, or prior EEO activity when they made their decision not to reappoint him. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000). What this means in practical terms is that the decision to fire Complainant cannot be found discriminatory simply because it appears that they acted unwisely, or that their decision was in error or a misjudgment. Kendra W. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112074 (April 18, 2014). In circumstantial-evidence cases such as this, Complainant can establish the existence of an unlawful motivation by presenting documents or sworn testimony from other witnesses tending to show that the reasons articulated by these officials for not reappointing him were pretext, i.e., not the real reason but rather a cover for discrimination or reprisal. St. Mary’s Honor Society v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993) citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253. Pretext can be demonstrated by showing such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the Agency’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. Opare-Addo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (November 20, 2007), request for reconsideration denied EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008). In support of the MOS’s assessment of Complainant’s job performance, the Agency proffered a notice of discussion dated June 13, 2013, and a notice of 7-day suspension dated June 17, 2013, issued to Complainant for disruptive and argumentative behavior and failure to follow instructions. IR 238-41. When asked by the EEO investigator why he believed that his race, sex, religion, or previous EEO activity were factors in the decision to terminate him, Complainant replied that he had named the MOS and other officials in a previous EEO complaint and that non-Muslim female PSEs were granted new 360-day terms. In other words, he merely restated his prima facie case without submitting any sworn statements from other witnesses or documents that contradict the explanation given by MOS or MOM, or which call their veracity into question. We therefore agree with the Agency that Complainant failed to establish that his race, sex, religion, or 0120142395 3 previous EEO activity played a role in the Agency’s decision not to renew his employment on July 22, 2013. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0815) 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), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610) 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 0120142395 4 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations March 29, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation