01974217
10-14-1999
Vernon D. Mathis, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, Unites States Postal Service (Southeast/Southwest Areas) Agency.
Vernon D. Mathis v. Unites States Postal Service
01974217
October 14, 1999
Vernon D. Mathis, )
Appellant, )
)
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01974217
) Agency No. 1H326107495
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
Unites States Postal Service )
(Southeast/Southwest Areas) )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission) from the final decision of the agency concerning
his allegation that the agency discriminated against him in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq. This appeal is accepted by the Commission in accordance
with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether appellant has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency discriminated against him
on the bases of race (African American), color (black), and sex (male)
when, on August 25, 1995, appellant became aware that a Caucasian,
female employee who failed her scheme and was terminated was reinstated
as a career employee while appellant was not reinstated after failing
his scheme.
BACKGROUND
In a formal complaint filed on October 28, 1995, appellant alleged that
the agency discriminated against him as referenced above. The agency
accepted appellant's complaint and conducted an investigation. At the
conclusion of the investigation the agency notified appellant of his right
to request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or a final
decision by the agency without a hearing. Appellant failed to respond.
Thereafter, on April 9, 1997, the agency issued a final agency decision
(FAD) finding no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellant
now appeals.
The record reveals that appellant, a Causal Employee, was terminated
after having failed to properly perform the duties of his position in
that he failed to qualify on an assigned outgoing scheme. Subsequently,
the parties signed a mediation agreement in which appellant agreed
to withdraw his pending EEO complaints in exchange for the agency's
promise to rehire him as a Temporary Employee (TE). However, appellant
failed to qualify for a second time on the outgoing scheme within the
required 90 day probation period and was terminated. On August 25,
1995, appellant became aware that a Caucasian, female employee, who also
failed to qualify on the outgoing scheme, was reinstated.
The record establishes that the comparison employee cited by appellant
was not similarly situated to appellant for the following reason.
According to the testimony of management officials, both appellant and the
alleged comparative failed their scheme training and both were terminated
as a result. However, appellant signed a mediation contract to return
to work in his previous position as a Transitional Employee and given a
second attempt to qualify for the position. He failed to qualify and was
terminated for a second time. In contrast, the comparative's case went
to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled that she should be reinstated.
Record evidence also establishes fellow employees not in appellant's
protected group who were also terminated for scheme failure.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Appellant's allegation of discrimination constitutes a claim of disparate
treatment which is properly analyzed under the three-tier order and
allocation of proof as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973).
However, the McDonnell Douglas analytical paradigm need not be adhered
to in all cases. In appropriate circumstances, when the agency has
established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct, the
trier of fact may dispense with the prima facie inquiry and proceed to
the ultimate stage of the analysis, i.e., whether the complainant has
proven by preponderant evidence that the agency's explanations were a
pretext for discrimination. See United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983); Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990). Since the
agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
action, the Commission will consider whether the agency's explanations
for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
Appellant's assertion that the reason for his termination was based
on his race, color, or sex is not supported by the record. The record
fails to establish that the agency's motivation for terminating appellant
was based on anything but his failure to qualify on the outgoing scheme
within the required probationary period. Appellant failed to show that
the agency's reason for its action was a pretext for discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the decision of the EEOC to AFFIRM the agency's final
decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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. Both the request and the civil action must be Filing a request for
an attorney does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right
to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
Oct. 14, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations