Below are some recent decisions of the EEOC involving postal employees not published elsewhere. The number that were won can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Don Cheney, Auburn, WA
*****

Ralph Harper vs. US Postal Service (January 9, 2007)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120064614.txt

A mailhandler was told by the EEOC that he cannot use the EEO complaint process to attack another proceeding, in this case the grievance procedure. “The proper forum for complainant to have raised his challenges to actions which occurred during the grievance proceeding was at that proceeding itself. It is inappropriate to now attempt to use the EEO process to collaterally attack actions which occurred during the grievance process.”

*****
Evaughan Lane vs. US Postal Service (November 7, 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0320060121.txt

Petitioner was charged with: (1) fraudulently reporting inflated amounts of retail stock present during several retail floor stock counts and/or fraudulently creating documents; (2) purposely failing to comply with retail floor stock and unit reserve count procedures; (3) failing to limit retail floor stock to a two-week level; (4) failing to comply with retained credit card procedures; and (5) fraudulently documenting cash retained credit counts of employees who were not present on the dates she allegedly performed the counts.

 Complainant admitted that she engaged in the conduct set forth in charges (3) and (4), and the MSPB found that the evidence supported the agency’s allegations in charges (1), (2) and (5). Petitioner filed the instant petition to the EEOC. Petitioner argued that other similarly situated employees outside of her protected basis were not treated as harshly. However, the MSPB found that beyond her bare assertion of disparate treatment, complainant did not produce evidence to support this assertion. The EEOC agreed.

*****

Terry R. Morrow vs. US Postal Service (October 19, 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/03a60124.txt

Petitioner was demoted from Senior Manager, Distribution Operations, to the position of Manager, Distribution Operations, for “misuse of a postal service vehicle, failing to prevent a subordinate employee from misusing a postal vehicle, failing to follow agency policies regarding travel expenses, and failing to properly pay his agency-issued credit card on which he ran up a balance of approximately $10,000.” The MSPB noted that petitioner had “engaged in an avalanche of misconduct” and upheld all of the charges against petitioner. The EEOC concurred.

*****

Maxine Nixon vs. US Postal Service (August 2, 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/04a60024.txt

The EEOC found that the agency discriminated against complainant when she was not selected for a 204B position in February 2000, when she was denied the opportunity to serve in an Officer-in-Charge position in April 2000, when she was not selected as Supervisor, Customer Services in March 2001, and when she was not selected as Supervisor, Customer Services in October 2001.

The EEOC ordered the agency, to the extent it had not already done so, to compensate complainant for all back pay and make all necessary adjustments to her retirement and other benefits which she would have enjoyed had she been selected as a 204B in February 2000, had she been allowed to serve in an Officer-in-Charge position in April 2000, and had she been selected as Supervisor, Customer Services in March 2001. The EEOC ordered the agency to promote complainant to the position of Supervisor, Customer Services, and until such time as this promotion is effectuated, the agency shall compensate complainant at the level of pay and benefits she would be receiving had she been selected as Supervisor, Customer Services in March 2001. Finally, the EEOC ordered the agency to compensate the complainant for reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses (about $30,000); and pay complainant $12,000 in compensatory damages.

*****
Mark Shirey vs. US Postal Service (April 19, 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/01a60862.txt

 The EEOC has consistently held that official discussions alone do not render an employee aggrieved. Asking the complainant to leave the office and standing close to him when doing so also fails to state an actionable claim.

NOTE: When something is not “actionable,” you still have the right to lodge a protest in writing to the installation head (see ELM 665.15). That way, at least the incident has been documented.

*****
Frank Black vs. US Postal Service (February 14, 2006)

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/03a60034.txt

A Supervisor of Customer Services with the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina postal facility, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when on April 7, 2004, he was issued a notice by his supervisor proposing his removal for unacceptable conduct, specifically, falsifying employee clock rings and failure to cooperate during a postal investigation.

Petitioner had routinely allowed two employees to leave early on Saturdays, and subsequently would enter clock rings indicating that they had worked a full eight hours. The record also reflected that this practice went on for approximately a year before an internal investigation was conducted, and these employees were paid over $4000 in salary for hours they did not actually work.

Petitioner admitted to falsifying employee clock rings, and there were witness statements regarding the account. Concerning the investigation, the record reveals that after approximately a half-hour of protestations and avoidance, petitioner agreed to meet with investigators and respond to their inquiries. Thereafter petitioner received a notice of removal, and petitioner filed an appeal with the MSPB.

The MSPB found that by petitioner’s own admission, he falsified time records. With respect to petitioner’s race claim, they found that petitioner did not establish a prima facie case, but assuming arguendo that he had, petitioner failed to show that agency officials were motivated by discriminatory animus. In effect, petitioner failed to show a nexus between his race and the agency’s actions or that the actions were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The MSPB denied his appeal.

Thereafter petitioner filed a petition with the EEOC, where he made arguments mainly asserting that other similarly situated supervisors had engaged in similar conduct without discipline. However, petitioner failed to proffer evidence which showed that these other supervisors had made entries for time employees did not work. His appeal was denied.

NOTE: An employee with a reasonable belief that disciplinary action may ensue can usually avoid a charge of “failure to cooperate during a postal investigation” by asking for representation at the investigative interview. Nonbargaining-unit employees also have this right (see ELM 651.2).