01a10203
02-02-2001
Barbara Blackmon, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Barbara Blackmon v. United States Postal Service
01A10203
February 2, 2001
.
Barbara Blackmon,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10203
Agency No. 4-J-6040125-99
Hearing No. 210-A0-6232X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges she was discriminated
against on the bases of race (Black), disability (herniated disk and
carpal tunnel syndrome) when on March 25, 1999, she was denied a bid to
a General Clerk position.
The record reveals that complainant, an Accountable Clerk, PS-05, at the
agency's Hinsdale/Oak Brook, Illinois Post Office, filed a formal EEO
complaint with the agency on August 16, 1999, alleging that the agency
had discriminated against her as referenced above. At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the investigative
report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of reprisal, disability, or racial discrimination. Assuming that
complainant established her prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ
concluded that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. The agency explained that the position at
issue is a �Senior Clerk� position and that typing is a clearly cited
requirement under the duties and responsibilities on the posting.
Further, the agency stated that complainant and the other bidders
(Co-worker-1 and Co-worker-2) were sent for typing tests 712 and 713.
The record indicated that Co-worker-1 passed test 713, however, none
of the three bidders passed test 712. Co-worker-1 was later certified
as qualified when she passed test 712 after a second time, however,
she was not awarded the bid. The AJ finally found that the agency in
fact did not award the bid to anyone because it was later discovered
that the position in question was not authorized.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful
discrimination and/or retaliation. Complainant argued that another
employee (Co-worker-3) was placed in the General Clerk position who
had not passed the typing tests. The AJ found that Co-worker-3 was
placed in a General Clerk position without passing the test, however,
Co-worker-3 came into the position pursuant to a settlement agreement
resolving either her own EEO action or a grievance. Complainant also
contended that the agency subjected her to the test in an effort to block
her bid. The AJ concluded that this was unsupported by the evidence.
In particular, the AJ cited the agency's qualification standards for the
general clerk position which required the successful completion of test
712 and the fact that Co-Worker-1 who passed the requisite test was not
awarded the position. Accordingly, the AJ determined that complainant
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
action was based on a discriminatory animus.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision. It is from this
decision complainant appeals. Complainant makes no new contentions on
appeal, and the agency requests that we affirm its final action.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate
where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive
law, no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if the
evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the
non-moving party. Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st
Cir. 1988). In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title
VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation,
complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or
her case. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173
(3d Cir. 1988). In determining whether to grant summary judgment,
the trier of fact's function is not to weigh the evidence and render a
determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether
there exists a genuine factual dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
After a careful review of the record, we find the AJ properly determined
that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case. The
Commission also notes that complainant did not provide any additional
information in response to the AJ's notice of possible disposition without
a hearing. The Commission also finds that complainant did not respond
to the AJ's notice informing the parties of her intent to issue Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law without a hearing. Furthermore, based
on our review of the record, we find that there is no genuine issue of
material fact. Therefore, we concur in the AJ's determination and find
that summary judgment was appropriate in this case.
Based on our careful de novo review of the entire record before us,
the Commission finds that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. We note that complainant failed to present evidence that any
of the agency's actions were in retaliation for complainant's prior EEO
activity or were motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's
race or disability. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's
final action.
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
February 2, 2001
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.