Thomas C. Sellers, Petitioner,v.Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 5, 2008
0320080081 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 5, 2008)

0320080081

09-05-2008

Thomas C. Sellers, Petitioner, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Thomas C. Sellers,

Petitioner,

v.

Dr. Donald C. Winter,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320080081

MSPB No. SF0752070544I2

DECISION

On June 9, 2008, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order

issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning his claim

of discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

Petitioner alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of

disability (Back Injury) when he was removed from his position of Heavy

Mobile Equipment Mechanic Repairer, assigned to the Maintenance Center at

the Marine Corps Logistic Base (MCLB) in Barstow, California. According

to the Notice of Proposed Removal, effective May 3, 2007, petitioner

was charged with (l) Unauthorized Absence; (2) Unauthorized Absence and

Failure to Follow Procedures to Request Leave; (3) Unauthorized Absence

and Leaving the Work Area Without Permission; (4) Disrespectful Conduct;

and (5) Sleeping on Duty.

Review of the record reveals that petitioner was absent from work

on several dates cited in the removal notice and he did not obtain

approved leave on the dates cited by the agency in the notice.

Petitioner's immediate supervisor testified that the specifications

included in the first three charges in the proposal letter were based

on his observations as to when petitioner was absent from work and his

decisions to deny leave to petitioner. In making these decisions, he

stated that he treated petitioner the same as the other (approximately 30)

employees he supervised. Petitioner's supervisor stated that he does not

approve annual or sick leave for his employees unless they have already

accrued the amount of leave requested. He maintained that he determines

the amount of leave accrued by employees by reference to an electronic

time and attendance system. Petitioner's supervisor further maintained

that he does not approve leave without pay requests unless the employee

submits "supporting documents." The agency also submitted copies of

excerpts from petitioner's electronic time and leave record (Master

Time History) showing that petitioner was charged Absence Without Leave

(AWOL) for all of the 26 periods identified in the first three charges.

At the hearing, petitioner did not refute any of the information provided

by the agency in support of the 26 specifications of AWOL.

Concerning charge 4 of the removal notice, the record indicates that

petitioner became disrespectful toward his supervisor when asked about

a leave-related matter. Regarding charge 5 of the removal notice, the

record shows that petitioner was found sleeping on duty by his supervisor

and other work leaders. Petitioner also did not refute these accounts

at hearing.

Following a hearing, the Administrative Judge (AJ) found that the

testimony of agency officials was more credible than that of petitioner.

Of note, petitioner's supervisors stated that petitioner had received

prior warnings regarding his unacceptable conduct, including a

previous attempt by the agency to remove him for AWOL. With respect to

petitioner's disability claim, the AJ found that agency officials had

articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions in

this matter. The AJ noted that "the agency provided unrebutted evidence

supporting every specification in the proposal letter. The appellant

provided no testimony or other evidence showing that the real motivation

of the agency was to remove him because he had suffered a back injury."

In effect, petitioner failed to produce any evidence suggesting that the

agency's cited reasons for his removal were pretexts for discrimination.

Petitioner sought review by the full Board, but the Board denied

petitioner's petition for review. Thereafter petitioner filed the

instant petition with the Commission, where he made arguments mainly

asserting that the AJ failed to consider the entire record concerning

his discrimination claim.

EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over

mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes

determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303

et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the

MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a

correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy

directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

Based upon a thorough review of the record, it is the decision of

the Commission to concur with the final decision of the MSPB finding

no discrimination. The Commission finds that the MSPB's decision

constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules, regulations,

and policies governing this matter and is supported by the evidence in

the record as a whole.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0408)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of

administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right

to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within

thirty (30) calendar days of 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.

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

September 5, 2008

_________________

Date

2

0320080081

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0320080081