01986160
06-16-2000
Lawrence Williams, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Lawrence Williams v. United States Postal Service
01986160
June 16, 2000
Lawrence Williams, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986160
v. ) Agency No. 1-B-061-0062-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted in
accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37, 659 (1999) (to be codified at
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly found that complainant
failed to show by preponderant evidence that the agency discriminated
against him on the bases of race (Black) and disability (right inguinal
hernia) when he was denied the opportunity to work overtime.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Mail Handler, at the agency's Processing and Distribution Center,
in Hartford, Connecticut. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against when he was denied the opportunity to work overtime from May 30,
1997 through August 5, 1997, while on light duty on the bases of race
and disability.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on September 24, 1997.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the
agency issue a final agency decision (FAD).
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish prima facie cases
of racial and disability discrimination. The FAD found that although
complainant proffered that a co-worker (Co-worker) was a similarly
situated individual outside of his protected class who was treated
more favorably, he failed to establish that he and Co-worker were in
fact similarly situated. In particular, the FAD noted that complainant
and Co-worker were under different supervisors in different areas and
Co-worker was on limited duty and complainant was on light duty.<2>
Therefore, the FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination and that complainant failed to show that
the agency discriminated against him on the bases of race and disability.
On appeal, complainant contends that he and Co-worker were similarly
situated because, for overtime purposes, they worked under the same
supervisor. Therefore, he argues that he established a prima facie
case of discrimination based on race. Further, complainant argues that
he was placed in an area which did not have overtime while Co-worker
was assigned to an area which allowed overtime. Complainant further
alleges that he and Co-worker received different accommodations because
of race.<3> The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Generally, discrimination claims are examined under the tripartite
analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). See Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F. 2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979). Complainant must first 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; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567
(1978). Next, the agency offers rebuttal to complainant's inference of
discrimination by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its action(s). See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981); see also United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983). Once the agency has met its
burden, the complainant bears the ultimate burden to persuade the fact
finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by the
agency were not the true reasons for its actions but rather were pretext
for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Cent. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses on
whether the complainant 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 complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether he or she has demonstrated
by preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its
actions merely were pretext for discrimination. Id. See also Aikens,
Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that the agency stated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. The agency stated
that complainant was on light duty and therefore, he was eligible for
overtime as long as there was a need for overtime work which was within
his medical restrictions. The agency argued that it does not "make
work" to give an employee overtime. During the relevant time period,
the agency officials averred that there was no overtime work available
for complainant within his restrictions. The Commission finds that the
agency has offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action.
Once the agency has provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its action, the burden shifts to complainant to prove that the agency's
legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination. Complainant argued
that he did not receive overtime because he was given an accommodation
in an area which did not have opportunities for overtime. Complainant
argued that Co-worker was placed in an accommodation which allowed
overtime because Co-worker is white. Upon review, the Commission finds
that complainant is raising another claim of discrimination which is not
before us in this instant matter. Further, the record does not contain
any evidence to support complainant's claim that he was accommodated in a
discriminatory manner based on his race. Therefore, the Commission finds
that complainant has failed to show that the agency's reason was pretext
for discrimination. Accordingly, the Commission finds that complainant
was not discriminated against based upon his race or disability when he
was denied the opportunity to work overtime.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the decision of the agency was
proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
June 16, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2 Co-worker's accommodation placed him in the security office while
complainant was placed in the re-wrap area. Complainant and Co-worker
were under separate supervisors at the time in question.
3 Complainant argued that he received an accommodation that was less
favorable than an accommodation received by Co-worker. Complainant
believes that the reason for the alleged discrimination was that
complainant is black while Co-worker is white.