0120112789
10-25-2011
Ryan O. Chatman, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Ryan O. Chatman,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112789
Hearing No. 420-2011-00046X
Agency No. 4H-350-0097-09
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning his complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination. For the reasons set forth,
we AFFIRM the Agency’s decision, finding no discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that, during the relevant time, Complainant was
employed as a Senior Mail Processor at the Agency’s Mail Processing
Center in Anniston, Alabama. Report of Investigation (ROI), at 1 and 5.
Complainant sought counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint.
Complainant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination on the
bases of race (AfricanAmerican), sex (male), and color (brown) when, on
February 28, 2009, he was placed on Emergency Placement and subsequently
on April 20, 2009, he was removed from the Agency.1
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant received a copy of
the investigative report. Additionally, the Agency informed Complainant
of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ), or alternatively, to receive a final decision from the Agency.
Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ.
On March 25, 2011, the AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for
the issuance of a final decision. This action was taken due to
Complainant’s failure to comply with the AJ’s Acknowledgment and
Supplemental Order dated December 22, 2010.
On April 4, 2011, the Agency issued its decision concluding that it
asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which
Complainant failed to rebut. Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant
appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, through his attorney, contended that the
record established that Complainant was treated disparately compared
to similarly situated Caucasian employees, and that the Agency has
not provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to
investigate the involvement of Caucasian employees in the taking and
use of the Kohl fliers. Complainant’s Brief in Support of Appeal, at 3.
In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency argued that there was
no evidence that Caucasian employees engaged in the conduct Complainant
engaged in, which included using fifteen Kohl’s $10.00 gift cards to
obtain merchandise, going through the checkout lines repeatedly so that
Complainant only used one gift card for each “purchase,” and lying to
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) about where Complainant obtained
the gift cards. In summary, the Agency articulated that Complainant
has provided no evidence that other postal employees of a different race
engaged in the conduct Complainant engaged in. The Agency requested that
Agency’s final decision be affirmed. Agency’s Brief in Opposition
to Complainant’s Appeal, at 1 through 6.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Complainant has not challenged the AJ’s cancellation of the hearing
and we decline to disturb that decision by the AJ.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency’s decision is subject
to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, § VI.A. November 9,
1999) (explaining that de novo standard of review “requires that
the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and
legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC
“review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including
any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and … issue its
decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and
its interpretation of the law”).
Upon review, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Postmaster of the Auburn,
Alabama, Post Office (Postmaster) stated that his work relationship with
Complainant was when he conducted the investigative interview with him.
The Postmaster disclosed that Complainant was put on Emergency Placement
because he used his position for his own personal gain. The Postmaster
explained that Complainant took things out of the mail stream which was
not good for the Agency. The Postmaster revealed that when he performed
an investigative interview with Complainant that Complainant admitted that
he took things out of the mail and used it for his own personal gain.
The Postmaster disclosed that he made the decision to put Complainant
on Emergency Placement and remove him. ROI, at Affidavit D.
The Postmaster averred that he received a call on Friday to go to
Anniston and when he arrived, the Postmaster of the Anniston Post
Office (Postmaster 1) was being walked out of the door by the OIG.
The Postmaster conveyed that he was given an Investigative Memorandum
from the OIG’s office. The Postmaster divulged the decision to place
Complainant on Emergency Placement and subsequently to remove him was
concurred by the Acting Manager of Post Office Operations at the time.
ROI, at Affidavit D.
The Postmaster articulated that the policies and contract provisions he
relied on when making his decision was Complainant’s own admission that
he used his position for his own personal gain. The Postmaster conveyed
that obviously the public couldn’t trust Complainant. The Postmaster
stated that Complainant went back to the store and tried to pay them
back so Complainant knew that he had done something wrong. ROI, at�
�Affidavit D.
It was noted that the placement of Complainant on Emergency Placement due
to theft of mail and use of that mail, and Complainant’s subsequent
removal from the Postal Service was based solely on Complainant’s
unacceptable conduct, and was consistent with Agency rules and
regulations. Complainant has not shown that similarly situated individuals
not in Complainant’s protected classes were treated more leniently.
After a careful review of the record and contentions on appeal, the
Commission finds that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency's articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Additionally, the
Commission finds that Complainant has failed to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of
race, sex, or color.
CONCLUSION
The Agency’s decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
October 25, 2011
__________________
Date
1 Complainant identified his race as male and his color as black.
In addition, when identifying the comparators, Complainant provided
sex and color. See ROI, at Affidavit A. Therefore, this case will be
analyzed on the bases of race, sex and color.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120112789
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013