Stephen Ruebusch, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 7, 2000
01991708 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 7, 2000)

01991708

03-07-2000

Stephen Ruebusch, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region) Agency.


Stephen Ruebusch, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01991708

v. ) Agency Nos. 1C-451-0010-97;

) 1C-451-0067-97

William J. Henderson, ) Hearing Nos. 220-98-5228X;

Postmaster General, ) 220-98-5229X

United States Postal Service, )

(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region) )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination on the bases of race (White), sex (male),

age (45) and reprisal (prior EEO activity), in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.;

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. �621 et seq.<1> Complainant alleged in his first complaint

(C1) that he was discriminated against on the above-stated bases when

on September 13, 1996, he was issued a seven (7) day Suspension for

Unauthorized Absence from his Assigned Work Area.<2> In his second

complaint (C2), complainant alleged that he was discriminated against

on the bases of race, sex and reprisal when: (1) on October 12, 1996,

he was forced to work on the Columbus Day holiday; and (2) on November

11, 1996, he was not allowed to work on the Veteran's Day holiday.

The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD as CLARIFIED.

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

as a MH-04 Mailhandler at the agency's Cincinnati, Ohio Processing and

Distribution Center facility. Regarding C1, complainant claims that he

was authorized by his Group Leader to be away from his assignment without

clocking out on September 13, 1996, and that he received more severe

discipline than comparison employees who also left their duty stations.

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and, subsequently, filed formal complaints on January 6,

1997 and February 18, 1997. At the conclusion of the investigations,

complainant received a copy of the investigative reports and requested

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a

decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.

The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination regarding the allegation in C1, because he failed to

demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in his protected classes

were treated differently under similar circumstances. The comparison

employees (3 Black males; 1 Black female) cited by complainant were

given discussions for leaving their duty stations without permission.

However, the record reflects that the comparison employees had no record

of past discipline when they received their discussions, while complainant

received the suspension in accordance with the progressive discipline

provisions in the agency's collective bargaining agreement (CBA), as he

had received a Letter of Warning for Improper Conduct on August 30, 1996.

The AJ further found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of reprisal, as he failed to present evidence of prior EEO activity.

The AJ further found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of race or sex discrimination regarding C2, as similarly situated

employees not in his protected classes were not treated differently.

In so finding, the AJ noted that complainant was required to work on

October 12, 1996, under the provisions of the CBA as another Mailhandler

had been granted annual leave for that day. In addition, the AJ found

that the record reflects that complainant was not scheduled to work

on November 11, 1996 as a more senior employee had the priority to be

scheduled for that day under the CBA. The AJ also found that complainant

failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal regarding C2, as

there was no evidence to suggest that management was aware of his prior

EEO activity at the time the alleged acts of discrimination occurred.

The agency's FAD implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant makes no new

contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

After a careful review of the record under the standards set forth in

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Hochstadt

v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318

(D. Mass. 1976), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell

Douglas to retaliation cases), the Commission finds that complainant

failed to present evidence that the agency's action in C1 was in

retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity or was motivated by

discriminatory animus toward complainant's race, sex or age. We further

agree with the AJ's finding that complainant failed to establish

that the agency's actions in C2 were motivated by sex discrimination.

In addition, we agree with the AJ's finding that complainant failed to

establish that any similarly situated employees not in his protected

classes were allowed to work on the November 11, 1996 holiday while he

was not. However, we disagree with the AJ's finding that complainant

failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination regarding

C2, as the record reflects that a similarly situated Black employee was

not forced to work on the October 12, 1996 holiday while complainant was

required to work. Nevertheless, we find that the agency articulated a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, namely, that the CBA

provided that the least senior Mailhandler had to work on the October 12,

1996 holiday, and the sole Mailhandler junior to complainant had been

excused due to pre-approved excess annual leave. We further find that

complainant has provided no evidence which establishes that the agency's

articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

In addition, we disagree with the AJ's finding that complainant failed

to establish a prima facie case of reprisal regarding C2, as management

did not know of his prior EEO activities. The record reflects that

complainant's supervisor conceded she knew of his protected activity at

the time the alleged acts of retaliation occurred. However, we find that

management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its

actions, namely, that the scheduling decisions at issue were determined

by the provisions of the agency's CBA. We further find that complainant

has failed to establish that the agency's articulated reasons were a

pretext for retaliation. Therefore, after a careful review of the record

and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,

the FAD is AFFIRMED as CLARIFIED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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:

March 7, 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 after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

Date

Equal Employment Assistant

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.

2 The record reflects that the suspension was reduced to a Letter of

Warning after complainant filed a grievance.