Delanamore F. Love, Complainant,v.Michael W. Wynne, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 20, 2008
0120065307 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 2008)

0120065307

05-20-2008

Delanamore F. Love, Complainant, v. Michael W. Wynne, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Delanamore F. Love,

Complainant,

v.

Michael W. Wynne,

Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200653071

Agency No. 4R0M05002

Hearing No. 450a60069x

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's August 18, 2006 final order concerning his equal

employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),

as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.

At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed as an

Aircraft Electrician, WG-10 in the 301st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron

at an agency facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Complainant filed an EEO

complaint on January 27, 2005, alleging that the agency discriminated

against him on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal for

prior protected EEO activity2 when he was issued a proposal to remove,

which was later changed to a 10-day suspension. On April 25, 2005,

complainant filed another complaint of race and retaliation when he was

suspended for one day for being absent without leave (AWOL) on the day

after he served his 10-day suspension. Finally, on June 20, 2005, he

filed a third EEO complaint alleging race and retaliation discrimination

when his appraisal was lowered because of the suspensions. Following an

investigation into the three complaints, complainant requested a hearing

before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ consolidated the three

complaints for a hearing, which was held on June 13, 2006.

Briefly, the evidence of record indicates that in May 2004, complainant

was tasked by his supervisor with performing scheduled maintenance on

two aircraft. The supervisor believed that complainant falsely certified

that he had performed the assigned maintenance work as required when he

had not. As a result, in August 2004, he was issued a proposed removal,

which was later mitigated to a 10-day suspension after consideration

of complainant's response. Complainant served the 10-day suspension

from November 9-18, 2004. It is undisputed that he failed to report

back to work on November 19, 2004, and did not call in or request leave.

Therefore, he was charged with one day of AWOL and issued an additional

one-day suspension. Complainant asserted that he misread the papers

regarding the 10-day suspension and, although he was supposed to return to

work on a Friday, he did not do so until the following Monday. On May 5,

2005, complainant received his annual performance appraisal with ratings

lower than those he received the previous year as a result of the two

suspensions.

In any event, after complainant filed his three EEO complaints, a report

was sent to the Commander by the EEO counselor, and complainant's

fifth-level supervisor was asked to review the matter. Upon review,

that fifth-level supervisor determined that the delay (about ten weeks)

in issuing the proposed removal (later reduced to the 10-day suspension)

may have impacted on complainant's ability to recall events in response to

the proposed action. Additionally, he determined that the investigation

that resulted from complainant's response to the proposed removal was not

as complete as he would have liked. Moreover, the fifth-level supervisor

determined that the subsequent one-day suspension and the lowered

performance appraisal were the direct result of the 10-day suspension.

Therefore, he recommended that the disciplinary actions be cancelled

and expunged for complainant's records, and the appraisal be revised

to the same level it was the previous year. This recommendation was

implemented by the agency in late May 2005.

Despite these actions, complainant's EEO complaints continued to

be processed, and the hearing was held in June 2006. Following the

hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding of no discrimination or

reprisal had occurred, which was then adopted by the agency. The AJ found

that complainant failed to present comparative evidence showing he was

treated differently than other similarly situated employees, or provide

any other evidence probative of his claims of disparate treatment.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the final agency order because

the AJ's ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not

proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 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 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 (S0408)

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 (Z0408)

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

May 20, 2008

__________________

Date

1 Due to a new Commission data system, this case has been redesignated

with the above-referenced appeal and request numbers.

2 The record shows that in July 2002 complainant had previously alleged

he had been subjected to race discrimination when he was suspended for

three days.

??

??

??

??

2

0120065307

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120065307