01985289
05-31-2001
Edward J. Reynolds v. United States Postal Service 01985289 05-31-01 .Edward J. Reynolds, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Edward J. Reynolds v. United States Postal Service
01985289
05-31-01
.Edward J. Reynolds,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01985289
Agency No. 1H-331-1024-94
DECISION
On June 19, 1998, Edward J. Reynolds (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission) with regard to his complaint of discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The final agency action was dated April 27,
1998, and received by complainant on May 30, 1998. Accordingly, the
appeal is timely and is accepted by this Commission in accordance with
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Based upon a review of the record, and for the
reasons stated herein, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM
the final agency action.
The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that he was discriminated against in reprisal for prior
EEO activity under Title VII when several payroll discrepancies occurred
from September 5, 1993, through September 24, 1993.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in December 1993, raising the
above-referenced allegation of discrimination.<1> The agency accepted
complainant's complaint for processing, and conducted an investigation.
The agency then provided complainant with a copy of the investigative
report and notified him of his right to request an administrative
hearing within 30 days. Complainant initially requested a hearing, but
subsequently withdrew his request by letter dated June 13, 1994. It is
noted that complainant then filed a civil action, which was dismissed
without prejudice. The Commission then ordered the agency to issue a
final decision addressing the merits of the complaint herein. Reynolds
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05960884 (March 5, 1998). Subsequently, the
agency issued a final decision finding that complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination as alleged. It is from this decision that
complainant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the agency
correctly determined that complainant was not subjected to reprisal.
It is initially noted that complainant asserted, on appeal, that he
was denied the right to a hearing. The record, however, shows that
complainant withdrew his request for a hearing in June 1994. Further,
the Commission specifically noted that complainant took that action
in its decision in EEOC Request No. 05950064. While complainant later
attempted to rescind his letter of withdrawal in June 1996, we find that
complainant had already abandoned his right by that time, and the EEOC
Regulations do not provide for such an action.
The complaint herein presents the issue of whether the agency subjected
complainant to disparate treatment on the basis of his prior EEO activity.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), provides an
analytical framework for proving employment discrimination in cases in
which disparate treatment is alleged. First, complainant must establish
a prima facie case by presenting enough evidence to raise an inference
of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802. The agency
may rebut complainant's prima facie case by articulating legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and if the agency does so,
complainant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
agency's reasons are a pretext for discrimination. Id. The Commission
notes that the McDonnell Douglas analysis need not be adhered to in all
cases. In appropriate circumstances, when the agency has established
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decision, the
trier of fact may dispense with the prima facie inquiry and proceed to
the ultimate stage of the analysis, that is, whether the complainant
has proven by preponderant evidence that the agency's explanations were
a pretext for actions motivated by prohibited discriminatory animus.
See United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460
U.S. 711 (1983).
A review of the record reveals that the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the action at issue, specifically, that
complainant was placed in an off-duty status on September 5, 1993, for
a period of 14 days, during which time, the data system automatically
deducted 6 hours of annual leave from complainant's balance. Further,
complainant did not initially receive court duty leave because he did
not submit the appropriate form. The record reveals that complainant
ultimately was granted court leave in December 1993, and that payroll
discrepancies were corrected. Complainant failed to show that the
agency's stated reason was a pretext for prohibited discrimination,
or that the actions resulted from any discriminatory animus on the part
of the named management officials. Accordingly, it is the decision of
the Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
______05-31-01____________________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify
that the decision was mailed to claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
Date
_________________________
1It is noted that the Commission previously addressed the agency's
definition of the issue raised in the underlying complaint. See Reynolds
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05950064 (February 8, 1996).