01981436
04-18-2001
Timothy Fitzgerald v. United States Postal Service 01981436 04-18-01 .Timothy Fitzgerald, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Timothy Fitzgerald v. United States Postal Service
01981436
04-18-01
.Timothy Fitzgerald,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01981436
Agency No. 4E-800-1200-95
DECISION
On December 12, 1997, Timothy Fitzgerald (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 November
10, 1997, and received by complainant's attorney on November 18, 1997.
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 (unspecified) when he received a letter of demand in February
1995, and a letter threatening garnishment of his wages in April 1995.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in July1995, raising the
above-referenced allegations of discrimination. 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. After complainant withdrew his request for a hearing,
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.
The complaint herein presents the issue of whether the agency subjected
complainant to disparate treatment on the bases 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. McDonnell Douglas,
supra. 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 actions at issue. Specifically,
complainant was required to pay back sick leave that was subsequently
changed to leave without pay after management learned that complainant
failed to report to work or notify his supervisors in a timely manner
that his doctor released him to return to work for 4 hours each day.
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.
Complainant asserted that he was attempting to find employment at
another facility at the time, and requested annual leave in advance.
Nevertheless, the Postmaster stated that the demand letter concerned sick
leave which complainant received without proper documentation during
two pay periods, and the record supports that assertion. 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
____04-18-01______________________________
Date