01973702
06-29-2000
Ulysses Coates, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Ulysses Coates v. Department of the Navy
01973702
June 29, 2000
Ulysses Coates,
Complainant,
v.
Richard J. Danzig,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01973702
Agency Nos. 94-00151-053
94-00151-079
Hearing Nos. 170-96-8084X
170-96-8085X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission or EEOC) from a final agency decision (FAD)
concluding that the agency did not discriminate against him in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. �791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.<1> In accordance
with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405), the complainant's appeal from the agency's final decision in
the above-entitled matter has been accepted by the Commission. For the
reasons that follow, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
In Agency No. 94-00151-053 (complaint 1), complainant alleged
discrimination on the bases of age (DOB: October 1, 1935), mental
disability (Situational Reaction Anxiety), and reprisal (prior EEO
activity), when: (1) on March 9, 1994, management issued complainant
an absent from work order; (2) management failed to restore him to his
permanent position of Painter Foreman after his compensation claim was
denied by the Department of Labor; (3) after complainant submitted the
required medical certification, management issued a second absent from
work letter, dated March 24, 1994; (4) management failed to respond
to complainant's Requests for Intervention; (5) management denied
complainant's request for a reasonable accommodation for an occupational
injury; (6) management denied complainant a response to his March 19,
1994 letter; (7) management denied complainant a response to his March 17,
1994 letter; (8) management denied complainant sick leave on March 7,
1994, and charged him with annual leave without consent for the period
March 14 through March 17, 1994; (9) management denied complainant's
requests for a 1993 performance appraisal, differential pay, overtime
pay, training, use of the Career Training Center and payment of health
insurance; and, (10) management carried complainant in non-pay status
for approximately thirty-five days without his consent.
In Agency No. 94-00151-079 (complaint 2), complainant alleged
discrimination on the bases of race (Black), age (DOB: October 1, 1935),
mental disability (Situational Reaction Anxiety), and reprisal (prior
EEO activity), when: (1) management converted his accrued leave and
sick leave into two payments; and, (2) the agency notified complainant,
by letter dated June 2, 1994, that he was indebted to the agency for
the amount of $160.00.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory events, complainant was employed
as a WS-09 Painter Supervisor at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and
ultimately retired from the agency in 1995. Believing that he was
the victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and,
thereafter, filed two formal EEO complaints (complaint 1, dated May 27,
1994 and complaint 2, dated August 29, 1994). The agency accepted the
complaints for investigation and complied with all of our procedural and
regulatory prerequisites. Subsequently, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), which was held on December 6,
1996. On January 13, 1997, the AJ issued a recommended decision (RD)
finding no discrimination. Thereafter, the agency adopted the RD and
issued a FAD, dated March 6, 1997, finding no discrimination. It is
from this agency decision that complainant now appeals. No contentions
were submitted on appeal.
Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
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 regarding whether or not
discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard
Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
In her RD, the AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of race or age discrimination. The AJ reasoned that
complainant failed to present a similarly situated comparator that was
treated more favorably. With respect to the disability-based claims,
the AJ concluded that complainant had failed to establish a prima
facie case, failed to show that he was even requesting a reasonable
accommodation, and failed to show that he was treated less favorably
than any possible comparator. The AJ further reasoned that the agency
had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,
which complainant failed to rebut. While the AJ found that there
was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of reprisal
discrimination, she concluded that the credible hearing testimony of
complainant's supervisor and the record in its entirety supported the
agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Again,
complainant failed to show that the agency's reasons for its actions
were pretextual.
After careful review of the entire record, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds that
the AJ's RD presented the relevant facts, and properly analyzed the
appropriate regulations, policies and laws. The Commission discerns no
basis to disturb the AJ's finding. Accordingly, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
June 29, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
Date Equal Employment Assistant
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. We further note that the Rehabilitation Act was amended in
1992 to apply the standards in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to
complaints of discrimination by federal employees or applicants for
employment. Since that time, the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part
1630 apply to complaints of disability discrimination. The regulations,
as amended, may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.