01971177
03-17-1999
Horace Williams, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Horace Williams, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01971177
v. ) Agency No. 4-G-752-1118-95
) Hearing No. 310-96-5134X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of
unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of national origin
(African-American), race (Negroid), color (Black), sex (male), and
physical/mental disability (chemical imbalance), in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et
seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791,
et seq. Appellant alleges he was discriminated against when he was: (1)
placed off the time clock under an emergency procedure; and (2) placed
on a sick leave status without his request or consent. 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 during the relevant time, appellant was
employed as a PS-5 Distribution Clerk at the agency's Irving, Texas,
Central Post Office (facility). On December 10, 1994, a co-worker
stated that appellant yelled at him on the facility workroom floor.
A facility supervisor testified that when she approached appellant
during this incident, appellant began yelling at her, refused to leave
the workroom floor and would not follow her into the facility office.
Several of appellant's co-workers stated that appellant yelled loudly,
and when he was taken into the facility office following the altercation,
he laid down on the floor and did sit-ups. After speaking with facility
supervisors and co-workers, the facility Station Manager felt that as
appellant was not acting normally, he was placed off the time clock,
sent home and placed in non-pay status.<1>
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on March 16, 1995.
At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant received a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision
(RD) finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that appellant established a prima facie case of race,
sex and disability discrimination because he was taken off the clock and
placed in non-pay status for yelling while similarly situated employees
not in his protected classes had not been. The AJ then concluded that the
agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,
namely, that appellant needed to be taken off the clock and removed from
the facility as he behaved in a loud and abnormal manner which frightened
his co-workers. The AJ found that appellant did not establish that
more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext
to mask unlawful discrimination. The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD.
On appeal, appellant restates arguments previously made at the hearing.
The agency responds by restating the position it took in its FAD, and
requests that we affirm its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We agree with the AJ that the agency
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and
that appellant failed to demonstrate that these reasons were a pretext
for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). We thus discern no basis to disturb the AJ's findings of no
discrimination which were based on a detailed assessment of the record.
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:
March 17, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations1 The Station Manager
testified that while appellant was initially
placed in a non-pay status, he was later placed on
sick leave and was not disciplined. The record
reflects that during the time appellant was on
sick leave, he was treated for bipolar disorder and
schizophrenia resulting from a chemical imbalance.