01976070
02-22-2000
William H. Sanders, Jr. Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
William H. Sanders, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
01976070
February 22, 2000
William H. Sanders, Jr. )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01976070
)
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. I-J-483-1029-96
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
William H. Sanders, Jr. (complainant) filed an appeal with this
Commission from a final decision of the United States Postal Service
(agency) 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.<1> Complainant's claim of
discrimination is based upon reprisal (prior EEO activity), when on
November 11, 1995, he learned that he had not been properly paid as a
full-time regular employee from March 4, 1995 through September 15, 1995.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
Complainant sought EEO counseling on January 9, 1996, and filed a formal
complaint on April 24, 1996. Following an investigation, complainant
received notice of his right to request either a hearing before an
EEOC administrative judge or a final agency decision without a hearing.
Complainant failed to request a hearing. Accordingly, on July 15, 1997,
the agency issued its final decision which found that complainant was not
discriminated as alleged. It is this agency decision which complainant
now appeals.
Complainant works as a mail handler in the Detroit, Michigan Post Office.
Pursuant to a prior EEO complaint, complainant received back pay through
March 4, 1995. See Sanders v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01955502 (July
28, 1997).<2> The record is unclear as to the date complainant was
reinstated as a regular employee to the mail handler's craft, however,
it is undisputed that he was reinstated no later than March 4, 1995.
However, between March 4, 1995 through September 15, 1995, complainant
received his pay as a part-time flexible employee rather than a regular
employee. In July, 1996, complainant received a $1200 pay adjustment
rather than the $2600 that he believed he should have received. Finally,
on February 21, 1997, complainant received the full amount of pay that
he was entitled.
The agency determined that complainant failed to present a prima facie
case of reprisal discrimination since complainant failed to identify an
agency official responsible for the pay discrepancy.<3> Accordingly, the
agency found that complainant failed to show that the responsible official
was aware of complainant's prior EEO activity. In addition, the agency
determined that complainant failed to present a causal connection between
his participation in the protected EEO activity and the adverse action.
In addition, although complainant could not identify a responsible
management official, the agency contacted a human resource specialist
(HR1) who affirmed that she did not know complainant, nor had she been
named in his prior EEO complaint. HR1 further affirmed that she became
aware of complainant's pay discrepancy in April, 1996 and contacted
the Minneapolis Postal Data Center (PDC) in an attempt to rectify
the discrepancy. It was HR1's understanding that PDC would make the
necessary adjustments without further input from HR1. Accordingly,
HR1 did not follow-up on the status of complainant's adjustment.
In addition, an accounting technician (AT) affirmed that complainant
received the adjustment by check dated February 21, 1997.<4> Accordingly,
the agency found that, assuming complainant could establish a prima facie
case of reprisal discrimination, the agency articulated a legitimate,
non-discriminatory basis for its delay in rectifying the pay discrepancy.
Lastly, the agency found that complainant failed to meet his burden of
establishing that the agency's articulated reasons were not credible or
were a pretext to mask prohibited discrimination.
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission
finds that, in all material respects, the agency accurately set forth the
relevant facts and properly determined that complainant failed to present
a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination. Accordingly, we do not
address whether or not the agency sufficiently articulated a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason for its employment action. Since, on appeal,
complainant fails to address the agency's finding that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, but rather attacks
only the agency's articulated reasons for its employment action, we
discern no basis to reverse the agency's finding of no discrimination.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision.
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:
2/22/00
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 Complainant does not allege that the agency failed to comply with the
remedy awarded in this decision or pursuant to this complaint.
3 Complainant affirmed that he did "not know who is actually responsible
for the retaliatory action."
4 Complainant confirms in his appellate statement that he in fact received
the accurate adjustment on February 21, 1997. However, he argues that
he is entitled to additional remedies.