01972594
03-10-1999
Ronald T. Jones, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Area), Agency.
Ronald T. Jones v. United States Postal Service
01972594
March 10, 1999
Ronald T. Jones, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01972594
) Agency No. 4F-920-1094-95
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 340-95-3856X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western Area), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the final decision of the United States Postal
Service (agency), concerning his complaint alleging that the agency
discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. The appeal
is accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of EEOC
Order No. 960.001.
Appellant filed a formal complaint alleging that the agency
discriminated against him on the bases of his sex (male), and race/color
(African-American/black) when the agency required him to undergo a
fitness-for-duty examination in December 1994, and when he was placed on
emergency suspension without pay. Following the agency's investigation of
his complaint, appellant requested a hearing with an EEOC administrative
judge (AJ). Thereafter, the AJ followed appropriate procedure for
issuing a recommended decision without a hearing. Pursuant to EEOC
regulations, the AJ provided notice to the parties and granted each
15 days to respond. Both parties submitted responses. Subsequently, on
December 2, 1996, the AJ issued a recommended decision, without a hearing,
finding no discrimination. The agency subsequently adopted the AJ's
recommended decision in a final agency decision dated January 23, 1997.
After a careful review of the entire record, including the parties'
statements on appeal and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed
in this decision, the Commission finds that the AJ's recommended decision
properly analyzed appellant's complaint as a disparate treatment claim.
See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); see also
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56
(1981). The Commission concludes that, in all material respects,
the AJ accurately set forth the facts giving rise to the complaint and
the law applicable to the case. We further find that the AJ correctly
determined that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case on any
bases alleged in his complaint. We also find that the agency rebutted
any prima facie case appellant may have established by articulating a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The agency sent
appellant on a fitness-for-duty examination because the Station Manager
observed him having erratic behavior and suspected that appellant may
have been under the influence of drugs. The results of the examination
found that appellant tested positive for marijuana. Appellant failed
to prove that the Station Manager acted with a discriminatory animus.
Therefore, based on a preponderance of the evidence, we find, as did
the AJ, that appellant failed to show that the reasons articulated for
suspending appellant and sending him for a fitness-for-duty-test were
a pretext for discrimination. Considering the evidence before us, we
discern no legal basis to reverse the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
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 this
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. �l6l4.604(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 this 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 this 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 this 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 10, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations