05980046
01-05-2001
Robert A. Schmidt, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robert A. Schmidt v. United States Postal Service
05980046
January 5, 2001
.
Robert A. Schmidt,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05980046
Appeal No. 01956573
Agency No. 4-D-290-1066-94
Hearing No. 110-95-8084X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Robert
A. Schmidt v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01956573
(September 16, 1997).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission
may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision
where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
Complainant, a city carrier at the agency's Bennettsville, South Carolina
facility, filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency, alleging that the
agency had discriminated against him on the bases of age (DOB: January
3, 1939), sex (male), physical disability (heart condition/angina),
and reprisal (prior EEO activity)<2> when he was subjected to harassment
and denied equal overtime opportunities ongoing since March 1993. At the
conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). Following the hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding no
discrimination.
In finding no discrimination, the AJ concluded that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ accepted
the agency's denial that it subjected complainant to harassment.
As to the claim that the agency denied complainant overtime, the agency
explained that it had hired other individuals in the fall of 1992 to
perform the duties complainant had performed in the past. This meant
that the agency had no reason to use complainant to work overtime after
these individuals were hired.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination and/or retaliation. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ
found that complainant merely asserted that the agency's position was
incorrect and failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to harassment.
Further, the AJ found that complainant failed to rebut the agency's
argument that it had no reason to use complainant for overtime based on
the hiring of new individuals in 1992.
The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant
appealed the agency's decision to the Commission. The previous
decision found that the AJ correctly determined that complainant had not
established by preponderant evidence that the agency had discriminated
against him. Accordingly, the previous decision adopted the AJ's
recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. In his request
for reconsideration, complainant reiterates the arguments he raised in
his initial appeal.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings
by an Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as �such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.� Universal Camera Corp. v. National
Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted).
A finding that discriminatory intent did not exist is a factual finding.
See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that complainant
failed to present evidence that any of the agency's actions were in
retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity or were motivated
by discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex, age, or physical
disability. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
decision.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01956573 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
January 5, 2001
__________________
Date
1On 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in
deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be
found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The record indicates that complainant opposed discriminatory treatment
of a Co-worker beginning in 1993 and was a witness in her EEO Hearing
which took place in May 1994.