01992193
11-21-2000
Paul Wright v. United States Postal Service 01992193 11-21-00 .Paul Wright, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Paul Wright v. United States Postal Service
01992193
11-21-00
.Paul Wright,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01992193
Agency No. 1-G-772-0087-98
DECISION
On January 26, 1999, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Commission) received a Notice of Appeal from Paul Wright (hereinafter
referred to as complainant) with regard to his complaint of discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.<1> At the time,
complainant was challenging the agency's decision not to expand the
scope of the investigation with regard to his complaint, and, thus, the
appeal was premature. Nevertheless, during the time that the appeal was
pending with the Commission, the agency issued a final decision dated
October 29, 1999. Thus, the Commission will exercise its discretion in
the matter and accept the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The issues on appeal are whether the agency correctly identified the issue
in the complaint, and whether complainant proved, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that he was discriminated against on the basis of his
disability (unspecified), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when
he received a pre-disciplinary interview on June 9, 1998, which resulted
in a suspension.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in August 1998, stating that he
received a suspension for being absent on June 7, 1998.<2> Complainant
asserted that, on his leave request form, he mistakenly indicated that
he would be absent on June 8 and June 9 instead of June 7 and June 8.
The agency accepted the complaint, and defined the issue raised therein
as concerning a pre-disciplinary interview which complainant allegedly
received on June 9, 1998, and a resulting suspension. In response
to complainant's letter concerning the scope of the investigation,
the agency, by letter dated January 6, 1999, notified complainant that
the investigation would concern the issue as stated in the letter of
acceptance. At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency provided
complainant with a copy of the investigative report and notified him
of his right to request an administrative hearing within 30 days.
Complainant failed to respond within the 30-day period. Thereafter,
the agency issued a final decision finding that complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination as alleged. It is from this decision that
complainant now appeals.
The Commission initially finds that the agency correctly identified
the issue raised in the underlying complaint. Specifically, the matter
raised with the EEO Counselor and in the formal complaint concerned the
actions surrounding complainant's absence from work on June 7, 1998.
While complainant advised the EEO Counselor that he had been subjected
to a conspiracy, complainant did not cite any other specific actions.
Further, after a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that
the agency correctly determined that complainant was not subjected to
discrimination. The complaint herein presents the issue of whether the
agency subjected complainant to disparate treatment on the bases of his
disability and prior EEO activity. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), provides an analytical framework for proving employment
discrimination in cases in which disparate treatment is alleged. First,
complainant must establish a prima facie case by presenting enough
evidence to raise an inference of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas,
supra, at 802. The agency may rebut complainant's prima facie case by
articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and
if the agency does so, complainant must show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency's reasons are a pretext for discrimination.
Id.
The Commission notes that the McDonnell Douglas analysis need not
be adhered to in all cases. In appropriate circumstances, when the
agency has established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
employment decision, the trier of fact may dispense with the prima
facie inquiry and proceed to the ultimate stage of the analysis,
that is, whether the complainant has proven by preponderant evidence
that the agency's explanations were a pretext for actions motivated
by prohibited discriminatory animus. See United States Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983).
A review of the record reveals that the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the action at issue, specifically,
complainant's failure to report for work on June 7, 1998. Complainant
himself acknowledged that he listed the incorrect date on his leave
request form. Further, while the agency proposed to suspend complainant
for seven days, management officials represented that complainant
never served the suspension. According to the record, the matter was
resolved pursuant to a step 1 grievance action on July 15, 1998, with the
suspension being rescinded and expunged, and charges of leave without
pay being changed to sick leave as complainant initially requested.
Complainant failed to show that the agency's stated reasons were a pretext
for prohibited discrimination, or that the actions resulted from any
discriminatory animus on the part of the named management officials.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the final
agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
_11-21-00_________________________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify
that the decision was mailed to claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
Date
_________________________
1On 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2It is noted that while complainant advised the EEO Counselor that
the action in question was also based upon his national origin (Native
American), and age (60) he did not include those bases in his formal
complaint. Therefore, the Commission considers those bases to have been
abandoned.