01972071
03-03-1999
Jerome Crockett, Appellant, v. 4F-940-1014-95 William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.
Jerome Crockett, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01972071
v. ) Agency Nos. 4F-940-1199-94
4F-940-1014-95
William J. Henderson, ) 4F-940-1190-95
Postmaster General, ) Hearing Nos. 370-96-X2179
United States Postal Service, ) 370-96-X2233
(Pacific/Western Region), ) 370-96-X2418
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the bases of race (African-American),
physical disability (back condition), national origin (United States),
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. and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.
Appellant alleges he was discriminated against when: (1) the ledge of his
case was not loaded with mail on June 3, 1994; (2) he was instructed to
pick up his personal mail from the customer side of his post office box;
(3) a supervisor questioned him about his on-the-job injury on September
27, 1994; (4) a supervisor instructed him to report to another facility
on September 28, 1994; (5) a supervisor refused to accept his workers'
compensation forms on October 3, 1994; (6) a supervisor returned his
workers' compensation paperwork on October 17, 1994; and (7) his workers'
compensation paperwork was not processed in a timely manner between March
31, and June 14, 1995. This appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC
Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the agency's decision
is AFFIRMED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed
by the agency as a City Carrier in Palo Alto, California and was
performing light duty work due to a back condition. Appellant alleged
discrimination based on several separate incidents that will be briefly
described below. Appellant alleged that on June 3, 1994, his supervisor
failed to load his case with mail. Due to his back injury, appellant
was unable to lift the mail from the floor to the ledge of his case.
Appellant's supervisor (Caucasian, no disability, no prior EEO activity)
stated that because of appellant's injury, she loaded his case every
morning including the morning in question. However, she stated that
appellant refused to inform anyone when his case needed refilling.
Appellant stated that his supervisor was aware that his case needed
periodic refilling and that he should not have to inform her each time.
On August 28, 1994, appellant was informed by the Station Manager of the
Hamilton Station facility, which was appellant's assigned facility prior
to being detailed due to his light duty status, that he had to pick up
his mail from the customer side of his post office box instead of from
the workroom side. The Station Manager stated that appellant's action
was a mail security violation, and that shortly thereafter he circulated
an informational security reminder to all facility employees.
Appellant stated that on September 27, 1994, while on light duty detail
at the Cambridge facility, he reported to the Cambridge Station Manager
(African-American, no disability, no prior EEO activity) that he had
injured his back. Appellant alleged that the Station Manager looked
at him with a doubtful expression and asked how did he injure himself.
The Station Manager stated that he asked appellant if his injury involved
his existing back condition, because if it did, appellant would need to
fill out a different injury form. The Station Manager also informed
appellant that he would report the injury to the safety office in the
main office and that appellant should pick up the correct injury form
from the main office. Appellant stated that he informed the Station
Manager that he did not care whom he called because none of them scared
him and that he was leaving to seek treatment from his physician.
On September 28, 1994, appellant reported to the Cambridge facility to
submit his injury form from the previous day. Appellant stated that
after asking where to put the form, the Customer Service Supervisor
(Native American, no disability, no prior EEO activity) told him to put
the form in the Station Manager's office and in a resentful tone, stated
that when he reported back to work to report to the Hamilton facility.
The Customer Service Supervisor stated that he was not disrespectful to
appellant and that he was following the Station Manager's instructions
when he informed appellant where to report to work.
On October 3, 1994, appellant reported to the Hamilton facility to submit
his doctor's letter and OWCP forms. He stated that the Customer Service
Supervisor began to interrogate him and stated that he could not accept
the forms. Appellant also stated that the Customer Service Supervisor
returned his OWCP forms to his post office box instead of mailing them to
his home. The Customer Service Supervisor stated he mailed the OWCP forms
back to appellant's post office box because the forms were incomplete
and the only address on the forms was the post office box address.
Appellant also alleged that he was discriminated against when management
failed to timely submit his workers' compensation paperwork to OWCP
between March 31, and June 14, 1995. The agency stated that the delay
in appellant's workers' compensation resulted because he submitted
incomplete forms and continually sent them to the wrong office.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed formal complaints on September 14,
1994, January 27, 1995, and November 9, 1995. At the conclusion of the
investigation, appellant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). Pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.109(e), the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) without
a hearing, finding no discrimination. In reaching her conclusion,
the AJ found that appellant failed to establish prima facie cases
of race, disability, national origin or reprisal discrimination, in
that he failed to allege that he suffered any harm in the terms and
conditions of his employment as the result of the agency's actions.
The AJ nevertheless concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and that appellant had failed
to offer any specific facts to demonstrate that the agency's actions
were discriminatorily motivated. The agency's FAD adopted the AJ's RD.
Appellant makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests
that we affirm the FAD.
After a careful review of the record in its entirety the Commission finds
that the AJ's RD sets forth the relevant facts and properly analyzes the
appropriate regulations, policies and laws. The Commission finds that
appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating that the circumstances
surrounding the disputed actions give rise to an inference of race,
disability, national origin or reprisal discrimination. Therefore,
after a thorough review of the evidence of record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission
discerns no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
Nothing proffered by the appellant on appeal differs significantly from
the arguments raised before, and given full consideration by, the AJ.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the agency's
final decision adopting the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is
considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney
concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your
action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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 3, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations