01A23287
10-18-2002
Jeffrey J. Billups, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jeffrey J. Billups v. United States Postal Service
01A23287
October 18, 2002
.
Jeffrey J. Billups,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23287
Agency No. 4G-770-0453-01
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms
the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a City Letter Carrier at the agency's Fairbanks Station, Houston,
Texas facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed
a formal complaint on June 5, 2001, alleging that he was discriminated
against on the bases of race (Black), sex (male), and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity when:
(1) On March 31, 2001, complainant was issued a 7-day suspension; and
(2) On April 12, 2001, complainant was placed off the clock.
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 FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination under any of the bases he raised.
With regard to complainant's claims of race and gender discrimination,
the agency concluded that he failed to show that any similarly-situated
employees outside of his protected classes were treated any more
favorably. Moreover, the agency determined that complainant failed
to show that his supervisor was aware of complainant's prior EEO
activity, and, therefore, that he could not establish a causal link
between the actions of which he complained and prior protected activity.
Consequently, the agency determined that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination.
Additionally, the agency determined that even assuming arguendo that
complainant established a prima facie case under any of his alleged bases,
the agency met its burden of articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Finally, the agency concluded that complainant
failed to meet his burden of showing that the agency's articulated
reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Complainant makes no contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that
we affirm its FAD.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he
was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that
would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however,
since the agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons
for its conduct. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). Here, the
agency maintains that the discipline issued complainant resulted from
his unauthorized absence from the work area, and his improper conduct
toward a supervisor.
To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);
Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995). In the instant case, complainant
has offered nothing, other than his own opinion, that shows that the
actions taken by the agency were, in fact, due to discriminatory animus.
Absent this showing, complainant is unable to meet his burden of proving,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is a
pretext for discrimination.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, and arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
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
October 18, 2002
__________________
Date