Jack Neuman, Petitioner,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 8, 2008
0320080049 (E.E.O.C. May. 8, 2008)

0320080049

05-08-2008

Jack Neuman, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Jack Neuman,

Petitioner,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320080049

MSPB No. DE0752050291I3

DECISION

Petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission asking for review of a Opinion and 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.

Petitioner alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of

reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 when he was removed from his position of Plant Manager

for alleged misconduct. Briefly, the agency charged petitioner with (1)

unacceptable conduct; (2) improper influencing of employee's testimony;

(3) appearance of impropriety; and (4) failure to follow proper

procedures.

A hearing was held and thereafter an MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ)

issued an initial decision finding that petitioner was not retaliated

against as alleged. However, the AJ found that the agency did not

support charges 1, 2 and 3 against petitioner. The AJ upheld charge 4,

and reduced the removal to a demotion. The agency filed a petition for

review with the full Board. In its Opinion and Order, the Board noted that

petitioner did not challenge the finding regarding his retaliation claims.

The Board went on to address charge 3, and found that the AJ had erred

in his analysis. Thus, the Board found that the agency had proved the

charge. As a result, the Board found that removal was the appropriate

penalty. Petitioner then filed his petition with the Commission.

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).

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. Petitioner failed to show that the agency's reasons for

removing him were a pretext for retaliation. 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 (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 8, 2008

__________________

Date

2

0320080049

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0320080049