01974225
03-31-2000
Charles E. Harris, Jr., Complainant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Charles E. Harris, Jr. v. Department of the Interior
01974225
March 31, 2000
Charles E. Harris, Jr., )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01974225
v. ) Agency No. FNP-94-003
)
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
bases of race (African-American), color (brown), sex (male), and reprisal
(prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant has established that he
was discriminated against on the above-referenced bases when the agency:
(1) opened his personal mail which resulted in $300.00 being taken from
it; (2) opened his "special attention" mail thereby exposing his social
security number; (3) delayed his request for personnel action regarding
his promotion and additional duties; and (4) did not allow him to travel
to field offices to ensure that they were in compliance with certain
directives, policies, and guidelines.
BACKGROUND
Complainant, employed by the agency as a Supply Systems Analyst when
the alleged discriminatory events occurred, filed a formal complaint
on October 18, 1993, in which he raised what has been identified as the
issue presented. The agency accepted the complaint for processing and,
at the conclusion of its investigation, issued a final decision finding
no discrimination. This appeal followed.
Evidence in the investigative file reveals that complainant received
a personal letter at the agency's facility. The letter was opened by
mailroom personnel before it reached complainant's desk. According to
complainant, $300, which he never received was enclosed with the letter.
Ten days later, complainant received another letter marked "special
delivery." Again, the letter was opened, this time exposing complainant's
social security number, before it was received by the complainant.
The agency contended that complainant's letters were opened pursuant to
its policy that all mail entering the mailroom be opened. The purpose
of the policy was to eliminate junk mail and to ensure that all mail was
distributed properly. The agency noted that whether or not this policy
applied to personal mail was never discussed because receiving personal
mail in the workplace is not appropriate. Complainant claimed that both
letters were opened on the bases of race, color, sex, and reprisal.
Complainant also claimed that a Request for Personnel Action (Request)
submitted by his supervisor to promote him from a GS-12 to a GS-13 was
delayed because of his race and reprisal.<2> According to materials in
the file, complainant's supervisor submitted the Request in September
1992. At the time of the formal complaint, filed on October 18, 1993, no
action had been taken on the Request. Action on the Request was finally
taken on March 10, 1994 when the Personnel Office officially notified
complainant's supervisor that complainant's position, despite additional
duties detailed in the Request, did not warrant a grade increase.
According to officials in the Personnel Office, a Position Clarification
Specialist (Specialist) position had been vacant for several months,
causing a backlog of Requests for Personnel Action. A new Specialist,
hired in October 1993, decided to process the simple requests first,
to move the backlog, and then process the more detailed requests,
including complainant's request. The agency stated that consequently,
complainant's Request took longer than the normal processing time.
Finally, complainant contends that, because of his race, he was denied
the opportunity to travel to field offices to ensure that they were
in compliance with the agency's directives, policies, and guidelines
regarding the Property Management Program. To support his claim,
complainant cited three white employees, one of whom (the Employee)
reported to the same supervisor as he, who had been allowed to travel.
In response, agency officials contended that the Employee was allowed to
travel because he was involved in helping various regions in space design
and layout. The agency also contended that the regions, not the agency,
paid for the Employee's travel. Complainant admitted that he had no
information regarding who paid for the Employee's travel. Finally,
the agency contended that the Employee dealt with Space Management,
which is quite different from Property Management, the area in which
complainant focused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging
discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973). See, Hochstadt v. Worcestor Foundation
for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976),
aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to
retaliation cases) First, complainant must 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 consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next, the agency must articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s) for its actions. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency
is successful, then the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the legitimate reason(s) proffered by the agency was
a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 25.
In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for a claim
of reprisal, complainant must show the existence of four elements:
(1) that he engaged in protected activity; (2) that the alleged
discriminating official was aware of the protected activity; (3) that
he was disadvantaged by an action of the agency contemporaneous with
or subsequent to such participation; and (4) that there was a causal
connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action. See, Hochstadt, Id., see also Mitchell v. Baldridge, 759 F.2d
80, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Burris v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc.,
683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 (1982).
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
In this case, the Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, regarding the
complainant's opened mail, the agency stated that all mail that entered
the agency's mailroom was opened to eliminate junk mail and ensure
appropriate delivery. Regarding the delay in considering whether or nor
complainant's position should be given a grade increase, the agency stated
that the person charged with handling the request processed it later
rather than sooner because it was one of the more involved requests.
Finally, the agency stated that complainant was not allowed to travel
because there were limited funds in the agency's travel budget and
because the agency's Property Management guidelines were not complete.
Because the agency has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the alleged discriminatory events, complainant now bears the
burden of establishing that the agency's stated reason is merely a
pretext for discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this
by showing that the agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason.
Id. (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
In this case, complainant has failed to meet that burden.
Regarding the agency's mail opening policy, the complainant submitted no
evidence which would indicate that the policy at issue here was applied
in a discriminatory manner. A mailroom employee stated that she opened
all mail that entered the mailroom.
As for the delay in processing the Request, evidence in the file suggests
that the delay was not discriminatory. In addition to submitting
the Request on behalf of complainant, complainant's supervisor also
submitted such requests on behalf of one other employee (White, no prior
EEO activity) approximately six months before submitting complainant's
Request. At the time of the formal complaint, a decision had not been
made on either. This lends credence to the agency's contention that,
because of the huge backlog in the Personnel Office, the official
charged with handling such requests put the most complex ones aside to
be processed later.
Regarding the agency's denials of complainant's travel requests,
complainant has not shown how employees outside of his protected groups
were treated more favorable than he. Of the three employees he cited
that were allowed to travel, only one worked under his supervisor. That
employee worked in Space Management, unlike complainant who worked in
Property Management.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that complainant
failed to establish, in all three instances, that the agency's stated
reasons constituted an effort to mask discriminatory animus.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response thereto, and arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we hereby AFFIRM
the final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
March 31, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2 Complainant believed that officials in the personnel office were
responsible for this alleged discriminatory event.