01A12171_r
07-30-2002
Joseph C. Payne, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Joseph C. Payne v. U.S. Postal Service
01A12171
July 30, 2002
.
Joseph C. Payne,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12171
Agency No. 4-D-230-0093-00
DECISION
Complainant timely filed an appeal from a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination brought
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and Section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq. We accept the appeal
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
In his complaint, complainant claims discrimination on the bases
of disability (10 point veteran status) and reprisal (for filing
prior EEO complaints) when on January 3, 2000 management failed to
properly post and coordinate the placement of candidates for a Vehicle
Operations Maintenance Assistant (VOMA) coverage detail, resulting in
his non-selection.<1>
The agency investigated the complaint and issued its final decision on
January 23, 2001, finding no discrimination. The agency determined that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on
the basis of either reprisal or disability, but that even if he had,
the agency articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its
action; namely, that the selection method complied with Article 25
of the National Agreement. In particular, the agency found that the
identified management official properly interpreted Article 25 as not
requiring the posting of temporary VOMA details, and in providing that
the assignment could go to any qualified, eligible, available employee
in the immediate work area of the temporary vacancy. The agency further
determined that the agency complied with Article 25 in its selection
regarding this detail. The agency additionally found that even assuming
that complainant was able to demonstrate that the agency mishandled
the selection, the record was devoid of any evidence to suggest
discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Therefore, the agency found
that the legitimate non-discriminatory reason proffered by the agency
was true, with complainant presenting no evidence of animus or pretext.
Accordingly, the agency determined that complainant failed to prove that
the agency discriminated against him as alleged in his complaint.
Complainant now appeals this determination.
The 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 instances. Where, as here, the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action at
issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the ultimate issue of
whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. 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, 1999); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Upon review of the record, we find that complainant has failed to show,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's proffered reason was
merely a pretext for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993). Specifically, we find that the agency's VOMA
selection process in this case fully comported with the specifications of
Article 25 of the National Agreement, and there is no evidence to show
that this reason was merely a pretext for discrimination. Moreover,
we find that the record contains no evidence to otherwise suggest
that discriminatory or retaliatory animus motivated complainant's
non-selection.<2>
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding
no discrimination.
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
July 30, 2002
__________________
Date
1These details are for a short duration, designed to cover the absence
of a regular VOMA worker who is on leave.
2We note that in Payne v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03867
(August 2, 2001), the Commission affirmed the agency's final action
adopting the decision of an EEOC Administrative Judge dismissing
complainant's complaint on the grounds of failure to state a claim.
Therein, complainant claimed that he was not selected for a VOMA
assignment in favor of a less qualified co-worker. The Commission
determined that this claim concerned a union matter, outside the purview
of the Commission's regulations. Complainant has filed a request
for reconsideration of this decision, which is pending under Request
No. 05A11014. In the instant case, we find that complainant does not
appear to be directly challenging the applicable union agreements,
but instead claims that his non-selection regarding a particular VOMA
assignment was motivated by discriminatory and retaliatory animus.
However, to the extent that the instant claim challenges the propriety
of the selection requirements mandated by the union agreements, we find
that this portion of the claim fails to state a claim.