01A15363
04-19-2002
Ronderric Hayes, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ronderric Hayes v. United States Postal Service
01A15363
April 19, 2002
.
Ronderric Hayes,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A15363
Agency No. 4J604015000
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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission
affirms the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a part-time distribution clerk at the agency's Oak Forest Post
Office in Oak Forest, Illinois. Complainant sought EEO counseling and
subsequently filed a formal complaint on August 15, 2000, alleging that
he was discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American),
national origin (African-American), sex (male), color (brown), and
reprisal for prior EEO activity when on:
(1) June 24, 2000 he was denied sick leave;
(2) July 3, 2000 he was denied union representation;
July 6, 2000 he was issued a letter of warning;
July 7, 2000 he was required to attend an Employee Assistance Program
for anger management; and
September 1, 2000 he was issued a seven-day suspension
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 a final agency decision (FAD). In its FAD, the agency
concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race,
national origin, sex, color, or retaliation discrimination. Further,
with respect to the race, national origin, sex and color discrimination
claims, the agency concluded that even assuming that complainant had
established a prima facie case of discrimination, the evidence in the
record did not support a finding that these factors were motivating
bases for agency officials. On appeal, complainant contends that the
FAD should be reversed because there are numerous false statements in
the affidavits of management officials. He also claims that he was
improperly denied training during December of 1999. The agency requests
that we affirm its FAD.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part 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 case 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. 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. 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. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
In a retaliation claim, in accordance with the principles set forth in
McDonnell Douglas, Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st
Cir. 1976), and Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05960473 (November 20, 1997), a complainant may establish a prima
facie case of reprisal by showing that: (1) he or she engaged in a
protected activity; (2) the agency was aware of the protected activity;
(3) subsequently, he or she was subjected to adverse treatment by the
agency; and (4) a nexus exists between the protected activity and the
adverse treatment. Whitmire v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A00340 (September 25, 2000).
With respect to the sick leave denial claim, there was no credible
evidence in the record supporting the proposition that management
actually denied complainant's sick leave request on June 24, 2000,
or that complainant even requested sick leave on that day. Thus,
the agency properly concluded that no discriminatory event took place.
There is no need for us to further address this claim.
For the remainder of the claims, the Commission assumes, for the purposes
of further analysis, that complainant established a prima facie case
of discrimination. Thus, the proper inquiry is whether the agency
articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action and
whether the complainant is able to establish that the stated reason was
a pretext for discrimination based on protected bases.
First, with respect to the union representation denial claim, record
evidence indicated that complainant's request for a union steward at a
pre-disciplinary interview meeting was not honored because the authorized
union steward was absent due to illness on July 3, 2000. This is a
legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the denial. Complainant failed
to produce any credible evidence establishing that the agency's reason
was a pretext designed to conceal discrimination.
Second, with respect to the letter of warning claim, the record indicated
that management issued complainant a letter or warning because complainant
conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a postal worker and failed to
follow instructions. The agency stated that complainant repeatedly used
profanity and failed to obey his supervisor on July 1, 2000. This is a
legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the warning. Complainant failed
to produce any credible evidence establishing that the agency's reason
was a pretext designed to conceal discrimination.
Third, with respect to the employee assistance program claim, the agency
stated that complainant was sent to the employee assistance program
for anger management because complaint acted out on the job. This is
a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for sending complainant to the
program. Complainant failed to produce any credible evidence establishing
that the agency's reason was a pretext designed to conceal discrimination.
Fourth, with respect to the seven-day suspension claim, the record
indicated that management issued the suspension because complainant
failed to follow instructions. Specifically, the agency stated that
complainant failed to go to lunch as instructed and ended his tour
without authorization. This is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for the suspension. Complainant failed to produce any credible evidence
establishing that the agency's reason was a pretext designed to conceal
discrimination.
In summary, on claim (1), complainant failed to prove that the
allegedly discriminatory event occurred. On claims (2) through (5),
complainant failed to prove that management based any of the employment
actions on a prohibited reason. 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 agency's final decision finding of no discrimination.
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 19, 2002
__________________
Date