Sohail Bari, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 8, 2013
0120122995 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2013)

0120122995

01-08-2013

Sohail Bari, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.


Sohail Bari,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Great Lakes Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120122995

Agency No. 1J601000712

DECISION

On July 17, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's June 18, 2012, 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Clerk at the Agency's Processing and Distribution Center facility in Carol Stream, Illinois.

On January 17, 2012, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Pakistani), religion (Muslim), color (Brown), and age (52) when on August 11, 2011 and continuing, his requests for before and after tour overtime were denied.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

Here, the record indicates that Complainant identified several dates from August 2011 through February 2012 on which he was denied overtime either before or after his tour of duty. The Complainant identified his supervisor as the management official responsible for denying him the opportunity to work overtime as he requested. Complainant indicates that he requested to work overtime either before or after his scheduled tour of duty by placing his name on the Overtime Desired List every three months. According to Complainant's testimony, "all [his] requests for both before and after-tour overtime" were denied. Complainant further alleges that his supervisor provided no reason for not approving him to work overtime despite his request to know why. Record evidence in this matter includes the Overtime Desired List for the 4th quarter of 2011 and the 1st quarter of 2012 both of which indicate that Complainant was on the list for "10 hours", "12 hours" and "non-scheduled days." A review of the record indicates that Complainant did not receive overtime on several dates from August 2011 through February 2012.

However, the record also indicates that Complainant worked overtime on the following dates in 2011 and early 2012: August 12, 1.98 hours, August 16, 1.9 hours, August 17, 2.14 hours, August 19, 2.2 hours, August 22, 1.89 hours, September 23, 1.97 hours, September 26, 2.3 hours, October 28, .53 hours, November 2, 1.83 hours, November 3, .55 hours, November 7, 1.27 hours, November 9, 1.13 hours, November 11, 1.98 hours, January 11, 1 hour, January 27, 1.12 hours and February 3, 1.87 hours. There is no indication whether the overtime worked by Complainant was before or after his scheduled tour of duty.

According to the Agency, when making the weekly schedule, Complainant's supervisor rotated overtime for non-scheduled days for those on the Overtime Desired List. On a daily basis, management called for overtime based on the mail volume and the number of clerks who would be available to process the mail. According to the Agency, Complainant's management did not know of the need for overtime until the business mailers presented the mail for processing. On the dates for which Complainant was denied the opportunity to work overtime, the record indicates that he was scheduled to end his tour of duty at 5:00 pm. The Agency indicated that at 5:00 pm, there was not enough mail volume for management officials to call for overtime. The Agency maintains that Complainant was on the Overtime Desired List and was called to do so when it was warranted by the volume of mail from August 11, 2011 and continuing.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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 Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the 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").

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim absent direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by demonstrating that he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Cmty Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reason proffered by the Agency was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Man's Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Complainant may establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin and race by demonstrating that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was subjected to adverse treatment, and (3) he was treated differently than otherwise similarly situated employees outside of her protected class. Walker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A14419 (Mar. 13, 2003), Ornelas v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01995301 (Sept. 26, 2002). It is not necessary, however, for Complainant to rely strictly on comparative evidence to establish an inference the Agency was motivated by unlawful discrimination. Soriano v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A14814 (Feb. 21, 2003); see also O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312 (1996); and EEOC Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., EEOC Notice No. 915.002, at n.4 (Sept. 18, 1996). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).

Even assuming arguendo that Complainant satisfied the above elements to establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, we find further that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct as alleged in this matter and Complainant failed to show that those reasons are pretext for discrimination. Complainant failed to establish that the Agency's action was based on discriminatory motives.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the final agency decision finding no discrimination.

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

January 8, 2013

__________________

Date

2

0120122995

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120122995