Bart L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 29, 20160120140179 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 29, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Bart L.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120140179 Hearing No. 532-2013-00059X Agency No. 4C-450-0121-12 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated September 20, 2013, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint alleging 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. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In his complaint, dated September 13, 2012, which was later amended, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) on July 11, 2012,2 he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) for Failure to Follow Instructions/Unsatisfactory Performance; (2) on August 2, 2012, he was issued a Letter of Demand (LOD); and (3) on December 10, 2012, he was issued a LOD and garnishment order from the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio. Upon completion of the 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2 The LOW was erroneously dated June 11, 2012, instead of July 11, 2012. 0120140179 2 investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On August 30, 2013, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. On appeal, Complainant, other than filing a notice of appeal, does not raise any arguments on appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. During the relevant time period at issue, Complainant was a City Carrier at the Agency’s Livingston Station in Columbus, Ohio. With regard to claim (1), Complainant’s supervisor stated that he issued Complainant the LOW at issue for his failure to follow official instructions and unsatisfactory performance. Specifically, the supervisor indicated that on June 28 and July 2, 2012, Complainant did not make his street time as assigned. Complainant’s manager indicated that he concurred with the supervisor’s issuance of the LOW. With regard to claim (2), an identified Customer Service Supervisor indicated that he merely issued the LOD at issue because the Agency Finance Department instructed him to issue the LOD to Complainant. The Agency stated that the LOD was issued to Complainant because he had been overpaid in error for overtime that was actually earned by a different employee, a rural carrier with the same name as Complainant. Complainant does not dispute this. The Customer Service Supervisor stated that the money had to be recouped by the Postal Service 0120140179 3 because Complainant did not earn it. Complainant’s supervisor and manager stated that they had nothing to do with the LOD at issue. With regard to claim (3), the former Manager, Payroll Processing Branch, stated that during the relevant time period at issue, the LOD at issue was merely a system generated letter and the garnishment, described therein, was processed in the normal workflow as a result of the November 19, 2012 bill for property damages issued by the Columbus Department of Public Utilities to the Agency against Complainant. The record indicates that on July 18, 2012, Complainant was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on duty driving a postal vehicle; in October, 2012, he received a letter from the City of Columbus stating that he owed the city $319.37 for damage to a utility pole due to the foregoing accident and the damages was to be paid by November 19, 2012; and, on November 14, 2012, the Agency was issued an Order and Notice of Garnishment of Personal Earnings from the Court of Common Plea, Franklin County, Ohio, concerning the damage, described above, against Complainant. After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. Furthermore, we find that Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in his protected groups who were treated differently under similar circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as he alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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. 0120140179 4 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), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (S0610) 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the 0120140179 5 time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations April 29, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation