Alphonso H. Dunbar, Petitioner,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 14, 2008
0320090001 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 14, 2008)

0320090001

11-14-2008

Alphonso H. Dunbar, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Alphonso H. Dunbar,

Petitioner,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320090001

MSPB No. CH-0752-08-0045-I-1

DECISION

On October 22, 2008, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order

issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning his claim

of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

Petitioner, who was a supervisor, alleged that he was discriminated

against on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under

Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act when he was removed by letter of

decision dated September 13, 2007, for absence without official leave

(AWOL), failure to maintain regular attendance, and failure to follow

postal service leave requesting procedures in connection with his entire

absence from March 31, 2007 to May 17, 2007.

Following a hearing, the MSPB issued an initial decision upholding the

charges and removal, and finding no reprisal discrimination. The Board

denied petitioner's petition for review. In sustaining the charges, the

MSPB recited the parties' stipulation that petitioner was absent from

March 31, 2007 to May 17, 2007; and found that he failed to provide a

reasonable basis for his absence, despite being requested and required

to do so. Petitioner attributes most of his absence to not being given

supervisory duties, and fear of reprisal for various accusations he made

against management in late March 2007.

Agency management testified that petitioner supervised mail processing,

and the initial decision found he admitted such at the hearing.

He testified that he was a supervisor, but had little to do because the

operation was very small and his three subordinates were experienced and

needed no supervision. The record shows petitioner was not permitted

to perform supervisory duties related to window financial matters and

entering leave into the agency's electronic leave tracking system.1

Petitioner did not produce evidence to establish that the agency's

actions were prompted by discriminatory animus rather than his extended

and unjustified absence.

Petitioner testified that he feared reprisal because of his various

accusations in late March 2007, but did not point to any actions the

agency took or threatened to take thereafter which justified his absence.

Instead, he pointed to his fears, based on alleged past incidents of

alleged reprisal, none of which the record shows were proven to be

discriminatory.2

EEOC regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over

mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes

determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303

et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the

MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a

correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy

directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

On petition, petitioner makes no argument. Based upon a thorough review

of the record, it is the decision of the Commission to concur with the

final decision of the MSPB finding no discrimination. The Commission

finds that the MSPB's decision constitutes a correct interpretation of

the laws, rules, regulations, and policies governing this matter and is

supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0408)

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,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within

thirty (30) calendar days of 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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

November 14, 2008

__________________

Date

1 Nevertheless, petitioner had authority to grant leave requests.

2 In Dunbar v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120064848

(April 10, 2008), the Commission found no race and sex discrimination

on several past agency actions, including his reassignment to another

location in May 2005, allegedly not being paid for all the hours he

worked from February 2005 to May 2005, his reporting time from May 2005

to September 2005, and being forced to work with insufficient staff on

May 28, 2005. In his testimony, petitioner raised some or all these

examples as reasons he feared reprisal.

??

??

??

??

2

0320090001

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0320090001