01991130
09-27-2001
Walter L. Crawford, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.
Walter L. Crawford v. United States Postal Service
01991130
September 27, 2001
.
Walter L. Crawford,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01991130
Agency No. 4-H-330-0098-97
DECISION
Walter L. Crawford (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. Complainant alleged
that he was discriminated against on the bases of color (Black) and sex
(male), when on October 28, 1996, he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW)
for Failure to Perform Your Duties in a Satisfactory Manner/Failure to
Follow Instructions.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Letter Carrier, PS-05, at the agency's Jose Marti,
Miami, Florida facility. Believing he was a victim of discrimination,
complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on June 12, 1997. 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. When complainant failed to respond within the time period
specified in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of disparate treatment or a discriminatory motive
based on color and/or sex. The agency concluded that the record shows
an articulated, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically,
the agency concluded that complainant failed to show pretext.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal complainant contends that management discriminated against
the Black employees in the office. Complainant asserts that Hispanic
employees are treated more favorably than Black employees, for example,
complainant contends that Black employees have difficulty in getting
light/limited duties. Also, complainant contends that Hispanic employees
work and gather on the work floor all the time off the clock.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In general, claims alleging disparate treatment are examined under the
tripartite analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)
(requiring a showing that age was a determinative factor, in the sense
that "but for" age, complainant would not have been subject to the adverse
action at issue). A complainant 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
reason was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). Next, the agency must articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action (s). Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). After the agency has
offered the reason for its action, the burden returns to the complainant
to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's
reason was pretextual, that is, it was not the true reason or the action
was influenced by legally impermissible criteria. Burdine, 450 U.S. at
253; St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
the complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Service
Bd. Of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983).
Assuming arguendo, that the complainant established a prima facie case
of discrimination based on his color and sex, the Commission finds that
the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. The record reveals that complainant's supervisor, a Black
male, issued a LOW to complainant because on October 10, 1996, complainant
was observed leaving his carrier case and walking toward the swing room.
The record reveals that complainant's supervisor instructed complainant
to return to his carrier case, and a few minutes later complainant was
observed engaging in excessive conversation. Complainant received a
LOW for failure to follow instructions and for engaging in time wasting
practices. The record further reveals that the same supervisor also
issued a LOW to a White male employee, for the same reason as complainant;
failure to follow instructions.
The burden returns to complainant to establish that the agency's reasoning
was a pretext for discrimination. Upon review, the Commission finds
that the complainant has failed to do so. Complainant merely argues that
Hispanic employees are treated more favorably, but he failed to present
any evidence in support of these contention. Complainant did not rebut
that he was engaged in excessive conversation, nor that a White male
employee was issued a LOW for the same reasons. The record reveals that
complainant testified that on October 10, 1996, when he was looking at
the bulletin board, his supervisor instructed him to return to his case,
and that subsequently his supervisors observed him drinking coffee and
talking for approximately five minutes. Complainant failed to prove
that White employees that engaged in excessive conversations were not
reprimanded. Therefore, he failed to show that the agency's action was
a pretext for discrimination.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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
September 27, 2001
__________________
Date