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.