01996370
08-29-2001
Todd M. Smith v. United States Postal Service
01996370
August 29, 2001
.
Todd M. Smith,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01996370
Agency No. 4-G-760-0002-99
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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against on the bases of race (White), color (white), sex (male), and
national origin (Irish American) when on August 11, 1998, he was issued
a Notice of Suspension for an at-fault vehicle accident that occurred
on July 29, 1998.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a PS-05 Distribution Clerk at the agency's Watson Community
Station facility in Arlington, Texas. Believing he was a victim of
discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on November 6, 1998. 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. � 1614.108(f),
the agency issued a final decision. It is from this decision that
complainant appeals. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the agency's final decision finding no discrimination based on race,
color, sex and national origin.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that there was a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the agency
found that complainant was issued a suspension because he had an
at-fault vehicle accident. The agency also found that complainant did
not demonstrate that the agency's proffered reason was a pretext for
discriminatory animus.
On appeal, complainant contends that he should not have been disciplined
because two other comparative employees also had at-fault vehicle
accidents and they were not treated as severely. The agency requests
that we affirm its FAD.
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether s/he has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
After a careful review of the record, we find that the agency articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. The record
establishes that complainant was involved in an at-fault vehicle
accident on July 29, 1998, while shuttling mail to another employee.
The record also establishes that complainant ran a red light and struck
another vehicle. The record further reflects that as a result of this
accident complainant was issued a Fourteen Day Suspension.
Complainant contends that other employees have had similar or, worse
accidents and were not disciplined as harshly as he. The record reflects
that of the eight comparative employees provided by complainant, only
two worked at the same facility as complainant. The first comparative
employee (CW1) was not involved in an at-fault accident. In point
of fact, CW1 was stopped in a turn when another vehicle slid into his
personal vehicle in an attempt to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
The second comparative employee (CW2) was involved in an at-fault
accident and was issued a Fourteen Day Suspension. Although CW2 was
later reimbursed for 80 hours of pay due to the suspension, that was
due to a Pre-Arbitration Settlement Agreement. Based on the foregoing,
we are not persuaded that CW2 was treated more favorably than complainant.
Consequently, the Commission 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. Therefore, after a
careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions, the
agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed
in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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
August 29, 2001
__________________
Date
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