01A24073
09-03-2003
Joseph M. Taggart, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area) Agency.
Joseph M. Taggart v. United States Postal Service
01A24073
September 3, 2003
.
Joseph M. Taggart,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24073
Agency No. 1-C-081-000-300
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.<1> 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 Distribution Clerk, PS-05, at the agency's Wilmington Processing and
Distribution Center located in Wilmington, Delaware. Complainant sought
EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on February 7,
2000, alleging that he was discriminated against on the bases of race
(Caucasian), color (white), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when effective August 28, 1999, his Tour 3 position as a
Distribution Clerk 2/9 scheme was abolished.
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. Complainant
requested that the agency issue a final decision.
The record reflects that complainant had participated in EEO activity
as recently as August 20, 1999 and that agency officials were aware
of complainant's prior protected activity. The FAD concluded that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race, color,
or sex discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, the agency found
that complainant failed to present evidence of a similarly situated
individual outside his protected class who was treated more favorably
under similar circumstances. The FAD found, however, that complainant
established a prima facie case of retaliation. The FAD then found
that the agency officials articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its action; namely, the implementation of a plan (OPTIMA) to
improve mail arrival and availability for delivery included decentralizing
secondary mail distribution. Agency officials decided that this change
would affect all manual distribution assignments on Tours 1 and 3 with
secondary schemes. Thirteen individuals were affected and ten jobs,
including complainant's, were abolished. The FAD ultimately determined
that complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the agency's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
On appeal, complainant requests that we reverse the FAD. The agency
requests that we affirm its FAD. As a preliminary matter, we note that
we review the decision on an appeal from a FAD issued without a hearing
de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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). 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).
The Commission finds that even assuming arguendo that complainant
established a prima facie case of race, color, sex, and reprisal
discrimination, complainant failed to present evidence that more likely
than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a
pretext for discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we note that
there is nothing in the record to show that the agency's actions were
a result of management's animus towards complainant's protected bases.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, 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
September 3, 2003
__________________
Date
1 The agency previously dismissed this complaint on February 28, 2000,
for failure to timely contact an EEO counselor. Complainant appealed
the agency's decision to the Commission. In Taggart v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03290 (June 26, 2000), we reversed
the dismissal and remanded the complaint to the agency to conduct an
investigation.