01a05806
11-09-2000
Ronald J. Longsdorf, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny), Agency.
Ronald J. Longsdoft v. United States Postal Service
01A05806
November 9, 2000
.
Ronald J. Longsdorf,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Allegheny),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A05806
Agency No. 4C-150-0052-99
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against on the bases of sex (male), age (DOB: 10/25/50), and reprisal
(prior EEO activity), when he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW)
for Failure to Follow Instructions.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Distribution Clerk, at the agency's Youngwood, Pennsylvania facility.
Complainant requested, and was granted, sick leave on February 2, 1999.
Complainant then called in sick on February 3 and 4, 1999. On February 4,
1999, the Supervisor of Distribution Operations (SDO) called complainant
at home and requested that he submit medical documentation for his
illness upon his return to work on February 5, 1999.
When complainant returned to work on February 5, 1999 without medical
documentation, the SDO against requested that he submit documentation.
On February 18, 1999, complainant submitted to the SDO a photo-copy of a
label from his non-prescription pain medication to support his illness.
Finding this was unacceptable medical documentation, the SDO issued
complainant the Letter of Warning.<2>
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on May 7, 1999.
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.
When complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in
29 C.F.R. � 1614, the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases. Specifically,
the agency found that individuals outside of complainant's protected
classes were also required to submit medical documentation following sick
leave absences. Furthermore, the agency found it articulated legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that it issued the
Letter of Warning when complainant failed to submit appropriate medical
documentation in support of his sick leave absences.
On appeal, complainant contends that the SDO issued the Letter of Warning
in retaliation for his prior EEO activity, and because the SDO did not
believe he was ill while he was on sick leave. The agency requests that
we affirm its FAD.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d
292, 310 (5th Cir. 1981); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)
(requiring a showing that age was a determinative factor, in the sense
that "but for" age, complainant would not have been subject to the
adverse action at issue); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for
Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal
cases), the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases because
he failed to establish an inference of 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 failed to provide sufficient evidence that the
agency's reasons lacked credence, or that it acted with a discriminatory
motive.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, 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
November 9, 2000
__________________
Date
1 On 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.
2According to the agency and complainant, the Letter of Warning was
eventually removed from complainant's personnel file per a union grievance
settlement at Step 1