Cassandra Harris, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 20, 2000
05980596 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 20, 2000)

05980596

10-20-2000

Cassandra Harris, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.


Cassandra Harris v. United States Postal Service

05980596

October 20, 2000

.

Cassandra Harris,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Pacific/Western Region),

Agency.

Request No. 05980596

Appeal No. 01962244

Agency No. 4F940106294

Hearing No. 370-95-2603X

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Cassandra

Harris v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01962244 (February

26, 1998).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in

its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the

requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).

Complainant alleges in her request for reconsideration that the

Administrative Judge (AJ) prejudiced her by not holding a hearing.

Complainant continues to contend that she was discriminated against

when she was: (1) replaced in her bid assignment by a younger employee;

(2) assigned to work alone in December of 1993; and (3) subjected to a

hostile work environment in November and December of 1993.

Addressing complainant's contention that she was prejudiced by the AJ's

failure to hold a hearing, we note that 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. Summary Judgement is proper when

"material facts are not in genuine dispute." 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). Only

a dispute over facts that are truly material to the outcome of the case

should preclude summary judgement. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (only disputes over facts that might affect

the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and not irrelevant or

unnecessary disputes, will preclude the entry of summary judgement).

For example, when a complainant is unable to set forth facts necessary

to establish one essential element of a prima facie case, a dispute

over facts necessary to prove another element of the case would not

be material to the outcome. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23

(1986); EEOC MD-110, at 7-15 (November 9, 1999).

In order to avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party, complainant

herein, must produce admissible factual evidence sufficient to demonstrate

the existence of a genuine issue of material fact requiring resolution

by the fact-finder. Celotex Corp., supra. The party opposing a properly

made motion for summary judgment may not simply rest upon the allegations

contained in his or her pleading, but must set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue still in dispute. In response to

a motion for summary judgment, the fact-finder'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. Id. at 248-49.

After a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ properly

determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case.

29 C.F.R. �1614.109(e)(3). Specifically, we find no reason to disagree

with the AJ's finding that complainant failed to set forth sufficient

facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. The AJ's

decision indicates that the AJ considered all of the evidence of record,

including complainant's objection and supporting exhibits, and concluded

that no genuine issue of material fact was presented. Our review of the

record confirms that complainant failed to show a dispute concerning a

material fact sufficient to sustain her objection to summary judgment.

Therefore, we concur in the AJ's determination and find that summary

judgment was appropriate in this case.

Accordingly, the Commission finds that complainant's request for

reconsideration presents no evidence which establishes that the AJ

erred in finding that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of discrimination or reprisal. Thus, after a review of the

complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous decision, and

the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet

the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the

Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01962244

remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of

administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request

for reconsideration.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(P0900)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right

of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.

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

October 20, 2000

__________________

Date

1On 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.