01A40446r
02-26-2004
Eddie C. Harris, Jr., Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.
Eddie C. Harris, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
01A40446
February 26, 2004
.
Eddie C. Harris, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A40446
Agency No. 1-H-33-0001-03
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Mail Processor at the agency's Pembroke Pines, Florida
facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a
formal complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that he was discriminated
against on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), and in
reprisal for prior EEO activity (arising under Title VII) when:
(1) On September 18, 2002, the agency issued complainant a Letter of
Warning for failure to follow instructions; and
On November 12, 2002, the Manager of Distribution Operations threatened
complainant with removing him from the workroom floor and refused to
provide complainant medical treatment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or
alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. Complainant
requested that the agency issue a final decision. In its final decision,
the agency found no discrimination.
As a preliminary matter, we note that we review the decision on an
appeal from a final agency decision de novo. 29 C.F.R. 1614.405(a).
Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the entire record before us in
our attempt to discern whether a preponderance of the evidence warrants
a modification of the agency's remedial ruling. See 29 C.F.R. 1614.405(a).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses on
whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when, as here, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See
Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31,
1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether s/he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
In this matter, complainant's supervisor stated that he issued the Letter
of Warning for insubordination. He stated that he instructed complainant
to report to the Delivery Bar Code Sorter (DBCS), but complainant refused
and became "loud and obnoxious." "I then proceeded to instruct employee
Harris to report to the ready room for an official discussion, which again
employee refused," the supervisor stated in his investigative affidavit.
The supervisor stated that he again instructed complainant to report to
the ready room, but he refused again. Regarding claim 2, the Manager of
Distribution Operations responded that on November 12, 2002, complainant
did not become ill, but was upset with his supervisor because he did
not want to talk with complainant. "I did tell him that he would need
to get his own medical treatment. He started to get up to leave, and
I instructed him to sit down and listen to the instructions, and if
he left before he heard them, he would be walked out of the building,"
the Manager stated. The Manager stated that on a subsequent date, he
summoned an ambulance because complainant's blood pressure was elevated.
Upon review of the record, we find that complainant has failed to provide
any persuasive evidence that the agency's explanations were pretext for
retaliation or unlawful discrimination. Consequently, we find that the
agency properly found no discrimination.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_February 26, 2004_________________
Date