Darnell Gardner, Appellant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 24, 1999
01970555 (E.E.O.C. May. 24, 1999)

01970555

05-24-1999

Darnell Gardner, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Darnell Gardner v. Department of the Navy

01970555

May 24,1999

Darnell Gardner, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01970555

v. ) Agency No. 94-00213-003

)

Richard J. Danzig, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.

Appellant alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of race

(African American) when he was not selected for a firefighter position.

The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The record reveals that in March 1994, appellant applied for reinstatement

as a firefighter in the Operations Department at the agency's Naval Air

Station in Key West, Florida. When he was not selected, appellant sought

EEO counseling and subsequently filed a complaint. At the conclusion

of the investigation, appellant initially exercised his right to a

hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, but subsequently withdrew

his hearing request, and asked the agency to issue a decision on the

evidence of record.

In its FAD, the agency found that while appellant established a

prima facie case, he failed to establish, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his

non-selection was a pretext for racial discrimination. Specifically, the

agency determined that appellant had an inexcusable history of absenteeism

and tardiness. It is from this decision that appellant now appeals.

Basd on the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 253-256 (1981), we agree with the agency that while

appellant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination,

appellant failed to prove that, more likely than not, the agency's

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action was a pretext for

racial discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we note the record

reveals that during his previous employment with the agency, appellant

developed a pattern of poor attendance and tardiness which influenced the

decision to terminate him in 1982. Management specifically declined to

recommend appellant for selection because, regardless of qualifications,

poor attendance on the part of firefighters compromises public safety.

Appellant contends that the real reason he was not selected was because

the selecting officials were racist, as evidenced by a phone call with the

Fire Chief, wherein, appellant asserts the Fire Chief accused appellant

of "raping White girls." The Fire Chief denies having ever made such

a comment or having indulged in any racial discourse, and his denial

is corroborated by the Assistant Fire Chief who was present during the

entire phone conversation.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including appellant's

contentions on appeal and arguments and evidence not specifically

addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the

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 the

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. � 1614.604(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 the 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 the 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 the 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. 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 24,1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations