01991060
03-28-2002
Leon O. Bean, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Leon O. Bean v. United States Postal Service
01991060
03-28-02
.
Leon O. Bean,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01991060
Agency No. 4K-200-1099-96
Hearing No. 100-97-7644X
DECISION
On November 18, 1998, Leon O. Bean (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) filed a timely appeal from the October 15, 1998, final
decision of the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred to as
the agency) 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 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794. The appeal is timely filed (see 29 C.F.R. �
1614.402(a)) and is accepted in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
For the reasons that follow, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the complainant has proven,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency discriminated against
him on the bases of color (light brown) and disability (on-the-job injury)
when he was denied overtime in March 1996.
Complainant filed a formal complainant on August 20, 1996. Following
an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). On August 13, 1998, the AJ issued a decision
without a hearing finding no discrimination. The agency agreed with
the AJ and adopted her decision.
Complainant held a permanent modified position in a unit consisting
of employees with medical restrictions. He stated that he was denied
overtime while a supervisor and others were allowed to work overtime.
The supervisor stated that she chose those that could perform the
overtime duties the fastest, and she denied that she discriminated against
complainant.<1> In his appeal statement, complainant stated that there
was a dispute regarding overtime job assignments, that the supervisor
violated the agency's regulations, that those who worked overtime had
dark skin, that assignment to overtime based on job speed was disability
discrimination, and that he fell asleep on the job because it was cold
on the workroom floor.
In general, claims of disparate treatment discrimination are
analyzed under the tripartite analysis first enunciated in McDonnell
Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 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 Construction 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.
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). 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 a pretext for discrimination.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983).
For purposes of further analysis, we will assume without finding that
complainant established a prima facie case on all bases alleged. The AJ
held that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its action, i.e., that the supervisor's criteria was productivity,
and that complainant did not demonstrate that the agency's reasons were
not true or based on discriminatory factors. After a careful review of
the record, the Commission finds that the decision of the AJ accurately
stated the facts and correctly applied the pertinent principles of law.
For the above reasons, we find that the agency did not discriminate
against complainant.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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.
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
_____03-28-02_____________
Date
1A settlement of this issue favorable to complainant and others was
reached in the grievance procedure.