01A31797_r
08-22-2003
Henry W. Mayfield, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Henry W. Mayfield v. United States Postal Service
01A31797
August 22, 2003
.
Henry W. Mayfield,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31797
Agency No. 4G-752-0296-02
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful 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. and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
On June 17, 2002, complainant, a Part-Time Flexible City Letter Carrier
at the agency's facility in Irving, Texas, initiated contact with an EEO
Counselor. Informal efforts to resolve his concerns were unsuccessful.
On July 12, 2002, complainant filed a formal complaint, alleging that
the agency discriminated against him on the bases of race and age
when on June 7, 2002, he was issued a letter of warning for failure to
follow instructions; and that on an unspecified date, his work hours
were reduced.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its final decision, regarding the issuance of the letter of warning,
the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination based on race and age. The agency further
determined that management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, the agency presented evidence
supporting a determination that complainant was issued the letter of
warning for failure to follow instructions. Further, the agency found
that complainant failed to present any evidence which demonstrated
that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext
for discrimination
Regarding complainant's claim that his work hours were reduced, the agency
dismissed it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(2) for failing to initiate
timely EEO Counselor contact. Specifically, the agency noted in its
Acceptance of Complaint, dated July 25, 2002, complainant was requested
to identify the specific date on which management reduced his work hours.
In his affidavit, complainant failed to identify a date for claim (2).
Furthermore, the agency found that in his affidavit, complainant's
Acting Supervisor stated that he was not aware of complainant's work
hours being reduced.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that
a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment
action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction
Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to
the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the
complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder
by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of
a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
(1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Letter of warning claim
Regarding the issuance of a letter of warning, the Commission finds
that the evidence supports a determination that the agency articulated
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment actions. The
agency determined that complainant was issued the letter of warning
for failure to follow instructions concerning mail preparation. The
record in this case contains an affidavit dated August 5, 2002, from
complainant's Acting Supervisor. Therein, the Acting Supervisor stated
that complainant was issued the letter of warning for failure to abide by
the Standard Operating Procedure for mail preparation. Complainant has
not demonstrated that the agency's articulated reasons for his letter
of warning were a pretext for discrimination.
Work hours reduction claim
With respect to complainant's claim that his work hours were cut, the
Commission finds that the agency properly dismissed it pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for failing to initiate timely contact with
an EEO Counselor. The record indicates that complainant made initial
EEO contact on June 17, 2002; however, complainant did not show that
he was subjected to any cut in work hours within the applicable 45-day
limitation period. Moreover, the record in this case contains the
affidavit of an Acting Supervisor, who stated that he was unaware of
any cut in complainant's work hours.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 22, 2003
__________________
Date