01981482
05-17-2001
Rodney G Maffett, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Rodney G Maffett v. United States Postal Service
01981482
May 17, 2001
.
Rodney G Maffett,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01981482
Agency No. I-J-464-1002-94
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning a 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against
on the basis of race (Black) when, on or about October 1, 1990, he did
not receive consideration for a Part-Time Flexible Mail Handler position.
The record reveals that complainant was appointed to the position of
Laborer Custodian, PS 3, at the Gary Indiana Post Office facility, on
August 10, 1990 (effective October 6, 1990). Believing he was a victim
of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on October 31, 1994. 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.
In its final agency decision (FAD), the agency concluded that complainant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was
discriminated against as alleged. Specifically, the agency found that
the agency failed to consider complainant for the Mail Handler position
because (in accordance with the Personnel Operations Handbook) at the
time the selection was made for the Mail Handler position (October 10,
1990), complainant was ineligible for consideration since he was already
working in a career appointment position. In addition, the agency noted
that no other similarly situated individual was treated differently.
Lastly, the agency found no evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus.
Complainant raises no contentions on appeal.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973); the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because
complainant has failed to establish that he was treated less favorably
than other employees outside his protected class. In addition, there
is no other evidence in the record which could otherwise establish an
inference of race discrimination.
The Commission further finds that 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 complainant has failed to even articulate an argument
of pretext.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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
May 17, 2001
__________________
Date