01a50999
04-28-2005
Michael L. Hamilton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Michael L. Hamilton v. United States Postal Service
01A50999
April 28, 2005
.
Michael L. Hamilton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A50999
Agency No. 4D-290-0033-99<1>
Hearing No. 140-2003-08244X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal from an agency's October 5, 2004
notice of final action concerning his complaints 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.
Complainant, a T-6 Letter Carrier Technician, alleged discrimination based
on race (Black), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity in
the following complaints:
In Agency No. 4D-290-0033-99 (consolidated with 4D-290-0040-99),
he alleged that: on January 7, 15 & 29, 1999, he was watched and/or
followed all mornings by a supervisor; on January 29, 1999, he was given
a discussion regarding going to the restroom after (instead of during)
his break time; on January 30, 1999, he was informed that any stoppage
of work was �illegal�; and he was told on December 23 or 24, 1998, that
he was required to work on his designated holiday, while the supervisor
asked his coworker if he wanted to work on his designated holiday and
that coworker said no and was not required to work on his holiday;
In Agency No. 4D-290-0042-99, he alleged that: on January 8, 1999, he was
issued a Letter of Warning; on January 15, 1999, he was issued a Notice
of 7-Day Suspension, which was updated and re-signed on January 16, 1999;
and on January 29, 1999, he was called into the office and questioned
about being away from his case on three occasions on January 28-29, 1999;
In Agency No. 4D-290-0070-99, he alleged that on April 8, 1999, he
became aware during an arbitration hearing of a letter dated June 11,
1998, that effective June 13, 1998, Route #727 should have been taken
from his T-6 string and replaced with Route #735 and to date that has
not occurred resulting in a vacancy within his swing; on March 24, 1999,
he was told to report to the office with a representative and questioned
about priority confirmation packages for two addresses; and after he had
a conversation with a coworker, the coworker was questioned by management
about the conversation and was told to be careful of the company he keeps;
In Agency No. 4D-290-0082-99, he alleged that on September 3, 1998, his
September 2, 1998 Request for or Notification of Absence (PS Form 3971)
to cancel annual leave scheduled for September 4, 1998, was disapproved
based upon the schedule being posted, while on April 19, 1999, and May 7,
1999, under similar circumstances, a coworker's request to cancel leave
was granted;
In Agency No. 4D-290-0088-99, he alleged that: on June 8, 1999, the
supervisor informed complainant that he was not allowed to sing while
working; and on June 12, 1999, a coworker informed complainant that
he noticed whenever the supervisor hears complainant's voice, he would
immediately come to his work area; and,
In Agency No. 4D-290-0090-99, he alleged that on June 12, 1999, the
supervisor instructed complainant to take one hour and forty-five minutes
off of route #749, but never gave him a Form 3996.
The record indicates that at the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
The AJ, after a hearing, issued a decision finding no discrimination,
which was implemented by the agency in its final action.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.� Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
After a thorough review of all of the evidence of the record and
testimonies of the witnesses provided by both parties, the AJ determined
that the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Specifically, the AJ stated that the agency demonstrated
that complainant was not treated less favorably than any other employee,
similarly situated or otherwise, or harassed due to discrimination.
The AJ also stated that with respect to many of the incidents in the
complaints, no adverse employment action was taken against complainant and
in other regards complainant's own actions precipitated some corrective
measures by management. The AJ pointed out that the attention directed
towards complainant by management was a direct result of his boisterous
and sometimes antagonistic behavior and conduct. The AJ further pointed
out that the acrimony between complainant and the supervisors and managers
was influenced by complainant's overzealous activism as a Union steward
and his staunch enforcement of the Union contract, but it was not
motivated by any discriminatory animus towards his protected status.
The AJ noted that while the management style and practices of the
managers and supervisors were considered oppressive and stressful by
all of the employees, their efforts and actions were not motivated by
any discriminatory intent towards complainant, or any other employee.
Specifically, two African-American carriers, complainant's witnesses,
testified that the atmosphere at work was oppressive, and all employees
equally shared some disdain for management and attributed the tension in
the workplace to management's overzealous efforts to satisfy productivity
goals and maintain a certain level of efficiency. They also testified
that they were not subjected to the same stressors and scrutiny as
complainant. The AJ determined that complainant failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's proffered reasons were
pretextual. The AJ further found that complainant was not subjected
to harassment.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is
hereby AFFIRMED because a preponderance of the record evidence does not
establish that discrimination occurred.
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
April 28, 2005
__________________
Date
1It is noted that this agency number represents a number of
consolidated complaints addressed in this decision.