01974884
05-30-2000
Willie R. Roberts, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Midwestern Areas), Agency.
Willie R. Roberts, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
01974884
May 30, 2000
Willie R. Roberts, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes/Midwestern Areas),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01974884
Agency No. 1-J-603-1090-95
Hearing No. 210-97-6024X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission or EEOC) from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint that the agency discriminated against him
on the basis of race (African American), in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>
Complainant alleged discrimination when on May 11, 1995, his request for
waiver of indebtedness (waiver) was denied by the agency's Minneapolis
Information Service Center. The Commission hereby accepts the appeal
in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37, 659 (1999) (to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following reasons, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory event, complainant was
employed as a Custodial Laborer, Level 3, Step AA. Believing that he
was the victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling
and, thereafter, filed a formal EEO complaint. The agency accepted the
complaint for investigation and complied with all of our procedural and
regulatory prerequisites. Subsequently, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Upon informing the parties
of his intention to issue findings and conclusions without a hearing and
permitting an appropriate time for response, the AJ issued a Recommended
Decision (RD) finding no discrimination. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e).
In his RD, the AJ concluded that while complainant established a
prima facie case of race discrimination, he failed to show that the
agency's actions were pretextual. Specifically, the AJ reasoned that
complainant failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for denying his waiver request. Thereafter, the agency adopted
the RD and issued a FAD, dated May 9, 1997, finding no discrimination.
It is from this agency decision that complainant now appeals. On appeal,
complainant reiterates previously submitted contentions.
The investigative record reveals that complainant was hired as a custodial
Laborer, level 3, Step AA, at a salary of $20,321.00. However, the
agency's personnel office issued PS-Form 50 "Notification of Personnel
Action" forms to complainant and a number of comparative employees that
inadvertently listed the appointments as Step A, $22,643.00 positions.
The personnel office informed complainant, as well as comparative
employees, of the salary errors and indicated the amounts that the
employees were overpaid and owed to the agency. The agency also informed
the employees that they could submit a "Request for Waiver of Claim
for Erroneous Payment of Pay." In this regard, the record shows that
complainant failed to submit his request for waiver in a timely fashion.
Furthermore, while the agency permitted requests for reconsideration of
denials, complainant again failed to submit the appropriate request in
a timely fashion.
After careful review of the entire record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, the Commission finds that the AJ's RD
sets forth the relevant facts, and properly analyzes the appropriate
regulations, policies and laws. The Commission discerns no basis to
disturb the AJ's finding. Accordingly, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
May 30, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.