Donald Bullock, Complainant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 27, 2000
01a03064 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 27, 2000)

01a03064

06-27-2000

Donald Bullock, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Donald Bullock v. Department of the Air Force

01A03064

June 27, 2000

Donald Bullock, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A03064

) Agency Nos. MG0J99005; MG0J99014

F. Whitten Peters, ) Hearing Nos. 130A08039X

Secretary, ) 130A08045X

Department of the Air Force, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

Complainant timely filed an appeal from the agency's final decision in

the above entitled matter. The issue on appeal is whether complainant was

discriminated against on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity) when:

(1) on November 11, 1998, his supervisor charged him for eight (8) hours

of sick leave on the federal holiday; and, (2) on or about March 25, 1999,

he was not allowed to pick up his personal belongings from his former

office. The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>

At the time of the alleged discrimination, complainant was employed

by the agency as a High Voltage Electrician Supervisor, WS-2810-10.

Prior to the complaints herein, complainant had filed numerous EEO

complaints against the agency.

Concerning Issue 1, the agency submitted evidence that complainant

was initially charged with sick leave because of a mistake on the part

of the timekeeper. The agency noted that the mistake was immediately

corrected and complainant lost no sick leave. Regarding Issue 2, the

agency provided evidence that complainant's personal belongings were not

initially released because he (complainant) was on administrative leave

and his supervisor was unsure about proper procedures. According to

the agency, the supervisor, after receiving instructions, permitted

complainant to pick up his belongings.

The EEOC administrative judge (AJ) found that a hearing in complainant's

case was not necessary because there were no genuine issues of material

fact or credibility in dispute between the parties.

Regarding Issues (1) and (2), the AJ found that complainant failed to

establish a prima facie case of reprisal in either instance because he

never actually suffered adverse agency actions because of the incidents.

However, assuming that complainant established that adverse actions

occurred, the AJ found that complainant failed to show any causal

connection between his protected activity and the agency's alleged

discriminatory actions. Accordingly, the AJ found that complaint failed

to prove his claims of reprisal discrimination.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds, initially,

that the AJ correctly concluded that a decision could be issued without

a hearing. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the

relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and

laws and correctly concluded that complainant failed to prove his claims

of reprisal discrimination. The agency provided specific explanations,

discussed above, with regard to both of the alleged incidents. After

carefully reviewing the record, including complainant's statement on

appeal and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed herein,

we find that complainant failed to prove that these explanations were a

pretext to mask reprisal discrimination. Accordingly, it is the decision

of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's

final decision.

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:

06-27-00

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing 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. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.