0120083536
11-05-2008
Roland J. Ledet, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roland J. Ledet,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120083536
Agency No. 4G-700-0042-08
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's July 29, 2008 final decision concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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.
During the period at issue, complainant was employed as a City Carrier,
Q-01, at the agency's Jefferson Street Station in Lafayette, Louisiana.
On February 15, 2008, complainant filed the instant formal complaint.
Therein, complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against him
on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior EEO
activity when, on February 15, 2008, he was officially removed from the
Postal Service and on February 22, 2008, he was reinstated.1
At the conclusion of investigation, complainant was provided with a copy
of the report of the investigation and notice of the right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final decision within
thirty days of receipt of the correspondence. Complainant did not
respond. On July 29, 2008, the agency issued the instant final decision.
In its July 29, 2008 final decision, the agency found no discrimination.
Specifically, the agency found that complainant did not establish a
prima facie case of race and reprisal discrimination. The agency further
found that assuming complainant established a prima facie case of race
discrimination, management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions which complainant failed to show were a pretext.
The Postmaster stated that he was the deciding official to issue
complainant a Letter of Decision based on "the nature and seriousness of
the charges and the evidence of record...." The record reflects that in
the Letter of Determination, the Postmaster determined that complainant's
failure to follow instructions continued to have a negative effect on
the efficiency of the Postal Service and justified serious discipline.
The record further reflects that complainant received disciplinary
action for similar conduct when he received a Notice of 7-Day No-Time-Off
Suspension on April 16, 2007; and received a Notice of 14-Day No-Time-Off
Suspension on August 21, 2007. The Postmaster stated that complainant's
race and prior protected activity were not factors in the determination
to terminate him from agency employment.
The Station Manager (SM) stated that he was the concurring official
concerning complainant's termination. SM stated that complainant was
issued a Letter of Decision for "Failure to Follow instructions (failed
to scan), Failure to Satisfactorily and/or Properly Perform Assigned
Duties (1st class mail left in case) and Unsafe Driving Practices
(failed to set the parking brake)." SM stated that complainant "made
excuses for the action but did not dispute the reason." SM stated that
complainant's discipline was progressive because he had several prior
disciplinary actions. SM stated that as a result of his grievance,
complainant was reinstated immediately without "loss [of] time nor any
interruption in pay." Furthermore, SM stated that he did not discriminate
against complainant based on his race or prior protected activity.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie
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. See
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See 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
responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.
See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In the instant case, we find that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which complainant did not prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, were a pretext for discrimination.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision because
the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that
discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
November 5, 2008
Date
1 The record reflects that complainant filed a grievance concerning
his Notice of Removal. On February 11, 2008, complainant's grievance
was settled and, as a result, the Notice of Removal was expunged from
complainant's file, and complainant was reinstated and paid for all
lost wages and benefits related to the disciplinary action.
??
??
??
??
2
0120083536
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120083536