0120090365
02-11-2009
Vincent T. Eddy, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Vincent T. Eddy,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090365
Agency No. 4C430004808
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's October 3, 2008 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. Complainant
alleged that the agency discriminated against him on the bases of race
(Caucasian), sex (male), color (white), and reprisal (prior protected EEO
activity) when: (1) on February 15, 2008, he was subjected to verbal
abuse and harassment from his supervisor (S1); (2) on or about March
18, 2008, he received notification to report for a pre-disciplinary
interview while on sick leave; (3) on February 25, 2008, he was charged
Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL); (4) on or about March 24, 2008,
he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW); and (5) on or about May 6,
2008, during a route inspection, he was ordered to change his route
and deviate from normal procedures, which had an adverse effect on the
outcome of the inspection.
With respect to Claim 1, complainant asserts that on February 15, 2008,
his first-line supervisor (S1) badgered him by asking him questions,
then cutting him off as he tried to answer, and repeatedly told him
that he better make eight hours. In addition, complainant asserts
that it was more how he was told this, than what S1 actually said.
He also affirmed that S1 told him that she did not like him and stated,
"So do you not like women or you just don't like black women?" Complainant
reported that this happened behind his vehicle and while they were walking
down South 5th Street. Complainant further asserts that he called the
Customer Service Manager (M1) on his cell phone as the incident with S1
was ending and complained about the incident. . Complainant claims
that S1 was taking pleasure in the incident, and was laughing at him.
S1 disputes complainant's version of events and denies that complainant
was harassed. S1 asserts that she was only doing her job as a supervisor
by performing street observations of complainant and other carriers.
With respect to Claims 2 - 4, M1 asserts that complainant reported to
work on February 25, 2008 and asked him if S1 was going to be reassigned
due to the harassment that he complained of on February 15, 2008.
Complainant refused to report for work, in response to M1's statement
that S1 would not be reassigned. M1 states that he informed complainant
that if he went home he would be charged AWOL. Despite his warning,
complainant went home and was charged with AWOL on March 24, 2008.
M1 denies telling complainant that he would only be charged with Leave
Without Pay (LWOP).
With respect to the LOW, S1 asserts that her only involvement was that
she signed the LOW for a management official who was out of the office.
The Acting Manager (AM) testified that she sent a notice to complainant on
March 16, 2008 for a pre-disciplinary interview after being advised of the
events which led to the issuance of AWOL and was the concurring official
for the LOW, which was issued based on complainant's AWOL charge.
With respect to Claim 5, M1 asserts that there was a station-wide
inspection from Monday, May 5 through Saturday, May 10, 2008. M1 also
asserts that the inspections were conducted by the Operations Support
team. Complainant's route was inspected on May 5 and May 6, 2008.
M1 further affirmed that as a result of the May 5th inspection he called
complainant into his office and informed him of various deficiencies
in his work performance detected by the Operations Support team.
Complainant was instructed to make changes necessary to perform his
duties satisfactorily. M1 asserts that the inspection team did not find
deficiencies with respect to other carriers delivering mail to business
customers. Moreover, M1 asserts that the changes in complainant's
route were the result of the route inspection and that he was not the
only carriers who had his route change following a route inspection.
In addition, M1 affirmed that complainant's race, color, sex or prior
EEO activity were not factors with respect to the employment actions
alleged in this complaint.
Complainant has not adduced evidence sufficient to establish that the
agency's proffered explanations were merely pretexts for discrimination.
See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 134
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);
Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
It is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision because the preponderance of the
evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred,
as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court
that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court
also 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 with the Court 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
February 11, 2009
Date
2
0120090365
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120090365