01A21405_r
06-20-2002
Rufus U. Stover, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rufus U. Stover v. United States Postal Service
01A21405
June 20, 2002
.
Rufus U. Stover,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A21405
Agency Nos. 1K-206-0081-99, 1K-206-0148-99, 1K-206-0149-99
Hearing No. 120-A1-4145X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 record reveals that complainant, a General Mechanic at the agency's
Capitol Heights, Maryland facility, filed a complaint on January 19,
2000, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him on the
bases of sex, color, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
(1) On April 14, 1999, complainant was moved from his work assignment
in the Bulk Mail Center to the General Mail Facility causing him to
lose overtime;
Between June and July 1999, complainant was placed in an emergency
off-duty non-pay status and was issued a Notice of Removal for Violation
of the Zero Tolerance Policy/Sexual Harassment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding that
claim 1 had been settled by complainant and was therefore moot. The AJ
also found no discrimination regarding claim 2. The agency's final
order fully implemented the AJ's decision.
The AJ found, and neither party disputes, that claim 1 had been resolved
by a settlement agreement dated May 12, 1999, and was, therefore, moot.
The AJ also found that claim 1 had been withdrawn by complainant.
Because complainant has failed to contest the AJ's finding regarding
claim 1, we find that claim 1 was properly dismissed as a settled matter.
Regarding claim 2, the AJ found complainant failed to demonstrate that
similarly situated employees not in complainant's protected classes
were treated differently under similar circumstances. Record evidence
failed to demonstrate that any of the comparative employees named by
complainant were similarly situated. The AJ found that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case from which an inference of unlawful
discrimination could be drawn.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant
of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's final action adopting the AJ's dismissal
of claim 1 and adopting the AJ's finding of no discrimination in claim 2.
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
June 20, 2002
__________________
Date