01974474
10-13-1999
James Nykaza, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James Nykaza v. United States Postal Service
01974474
October 13, 1999
James Nykaza, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01974474
v. ) Agency No. 4-H-327-1206-95
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
)
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
bases of race (Caucasian), national origin (Polish), religion (Catholic),
sex (male), and age (50) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 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.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
BACKGROUND
The evidence of record reveals that appellant filed a formal EEO complaint
on May 1, 1995, alleging discrimination on the above-referenced bases
when, on February 17, 1995, he was detailed from his position as Manager,
Customer Service and moved to a different postal station. The agency
accepted the complaint for processing and, at the conclusion of its
investigation, issued a final decision finding no discrimination.
This appeal followed.
The central event in this case arose when an agency employee (unknown)
posted a newspaper article referencing appellant's arrest record
regarding spousal abuse. When questioned about the article, appellant
revealed that he had also been arrested for driving under the influence.
Shortly thereafter, he was detailed to another station pending an
investigation into the aforementioned charges. According to the agency,
subsequent investigation uncovered possible improper procedures in the
auditing and issuance of stamp stock along with mishandling of suspense
and trust items in the main stock of the station in which he managed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging
discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973). See, Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979) (applying McDonnell Douglas to age cases). First, appellant
must 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. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next,
the agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s)
for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency is successful, then the appellant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate reason
proffered by the agency was a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the appellant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the appellant
has established a prima facie case to whether s/he has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717
(1983).
The Commission finds that the agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the agency
contends that the detail was not a disciplinary move, but rather an
administrative action pending the agency's investigation regarding
appellant's audit procedures and conduct unbecoming of a manager, i.e.,
spousal abuse and driving under the influence.
Because the agency has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for the alleged discriminatory events, appellant now bears the burden
of establishing that the agency's stated reason is merely a pretext
for discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration, EEOC
Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Appellant can do this by
showing that the agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason.
Id. (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
In the present case, appellant has failed to meet that burden. The only
evidence offered by appellant to support his contention that he was the
victim of unlawful discrimination is the names of three agency employees.
However, agency records reveal that these employees are, like appellant,
White males. Also, unlike appellant, these employees were not employed as
managers, nor were they supervised by the alleged discriminating official.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that appellant's evidence
is insufficient to establish pretext.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including appellant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we hereby AFFIRM the final
agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is
considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney
concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your
action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Oct. 13, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations