01985841
04-26-2000
Raymond King, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Raymond King v. United States Postal Service
01985841
April 26, 2000
Raymond King, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01985841
v. ) Agency No. 4-J-481-0114-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
The complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (Commission) from the final decision of the agency
concerning his claim that the agency violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<0> The appeal
is accepted by the Commission in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the agency retaliated against the
complainant based on his prior EEO activity when, on March 10, 1997,
he was treated in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner and denied
a doctor's appointment.
BACKGROUND
The complainant filed a formal complaint in September 1997 in which he
raised the issue set forth above. Following an investigation of the
complaint, the complainant did not request a hearing and the agency
thereafter issued a final decision (FAD) dated June 23, 1998, finding
no discrimination. It is from this decision that the complainant now
appeals.
During the period in question, the complainant was employed as a
City Carrier at the College Park Post Office in Detroit, Michigan.
According to the complainant, in early March 1997 he submitted a leave
request (3971) requesting sick leave to attend a doctor's appointment
on March 10. The complainant states that, on the morning of March 10,
he reminded his then-supervisor (the Responsible Official, RO) about
the appointment but was told that his request for the sick leave had
been denied. According to the complainant, the RO spoke to him like he
was "a child." In arguing that the RO's actions were retaliatory, the
complainant cites an EEO complaint filed by his wife in which he gave
an affidavit. The record reveals that this complaint was filed in 1995
and that the complainant gave the affidavit on March 29, 1996.
The RO testified that she did not recall the alleged incident and
does not remember whether the request the complainant references was
disallowed.<0> The RO also indicated that she had no direct knowledge
of the complainant's EEO activity, noting she had only heard rumors to
that effect.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation
of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case
alleging retaliation is a three-step process. The complainant has
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation.
If the complainant meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the
agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
challenged action. The complainant must then prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the legitimate reason articulated by the agency
was not its true reason, but was a pretext for the retaliation. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
The complainant can establish a prima facie case of retaliation
by showing: (1) that he engaged in prior protected activity; (2)
that an official named in the complaint knew of that activity; (3)
that he was disadvantaged by an action of the employer subsequent to
or contemporaneous with such opposition and participation; and (4)
that the protected activity and the adverse action were sufficiently
close in time to permit an inference of retaliatory motive. Hochstadt
v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318,
324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). We find that the
complainant, based on the affidavit he gave in support of his wife's EEO
complaint, has established that he engaged in prior protected activity.
We also conclude, however, that the complainant has not established a
causal connection between that activity and the denial of his request to
attend the medical appointment. Specifically, we note that the activity
pre-dated the denial by nearly a year and did not involve the RO.
Moreover, although the RO had heard a rumor that the complainant had
engaged in prior EEO activity, she had no specific knowledge of the
activity on which the complainant premises his claim. For these reasons,
we find the complainant cannot establish an inference that the denial of
his leave request was related to his prior EEO activity. Accordingly, we
find that the complainant cannot establish that he was retaliated against
based on that activity.
CONCLUSION
It is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the FAD and find the
complainant has not established that he was discriminated against
as alleged.
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).
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:
04-26-00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
01 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.
02 Moreover, we note that, despite repeated requests to both the
complainant and the agency by the investigator, a copy of the 3971 was
never produced.