Claudetta Stokes, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 25, 2009
0120083129 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 25, 2009)

0120083129

08-25-2009

Claudetta Stokes, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.


Claudetta Stokes,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southwest Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083129

Hearing No. 450-2008-00101X

Agency No. 1G-755-0020-07

DECISION

On July 7, 2008, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's July 1,

2008, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)

complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the

Commission VACATES the agency's final order.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the Administrative Judge (AJ) properly issued a decision without a

hearing in which she found that complainant was not subjected to unlawful

discrimination.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, complainant worked as an Entrance Control

Clerk at the Dallas, Texas Air Mail Center. 1

On September 13, 2007, complainant filed an EEO complaint. Therein,

complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of

disability (back and hand impairment) when in August and September 2007,

the agency failed to recognize complainant as Employee of the Month even

though she was qualified; failed to grant her lunch breaks and other

breaks; and took away thirty minutes from the end of her tour of duty.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely

requested a hearing. Over complainant's objections, the AJ assigned

to the case granted the agency's April 16, 2008 motion for a decision

without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on June 24,

2008 in which she found no discrimination. The agency subsequently issued

a final order fully adopting the AJ's findings.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, complainant contends that she has proven that she is an

individual with a disability, and the AJ improperly issued a decision

without a hearing finding no discrimination because there are facts

in dispute. The agency requests that we affirm its final order.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ's legal and

factual conclusions, and the agency's final order adopting them, de novo.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a) (stating that a "decision on an appeal from

an agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review . . ."); see

also EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999)

(providing that an administrative judge's "decision to issue a decision

without a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)] will be reviewed

de novo"). This essentially means that we should look at this case

with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate)

or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's, factual conclusions and

legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional

discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal

employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9,

� VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that

the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and

legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC

"review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including

any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its

decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its

interpretation of the law").

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. If a

case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing a

decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context

of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a

decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the

record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).

We find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because

complainant failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists

In a claim such as the instant one which alleges disparate treatment, and

where there is an absence of direct evidence of such discrimination, the

allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof is a three-step

process. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,

142 (2000) (applying the analytical framework described in McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973), to an ADEA disparate

treatment claim). First, complainant must establish a prima facie case

of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably

give rise to an inference of discrimination; i.e., that a prohibited

consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. Kimble

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01983020 (Aug. 22, 2001).

The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has

articulated such a reason, the question becomes whether the proffered

explanation was the true reason for the agency's action, or merely

a pretext for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509

U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Although the burden of production, in other words,

"going forward," may shift, the burden of persuasion, by a preponderance

of the evidence, remains at all times on complainant. Burdine, 450

U.S. at 256.

In this case, we assume arguendo that complainant is an individual with

a disability and established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Nonetheless, we find that the agency provided legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the record

indicates that complainant was not nominated for an Employee of the Month

award in August 2007 because her supervisor was on vacation during the

time employees were chosen for the award. Management further stated that

complainant's supervisor nominated her to receive the award in September

2007, but complainant was not randomly selected to receive the award.2

With respect to complainant's claim that she was not given lunch breaks

or breaks and 30 minutes were taken away from her tour in August and

September 2007, complainant's supervisor stated that she does not recall

30 minutes being taken away from complainant's tour or complainant not

receiving breaks. The supervisor further stated that if complainant

told her that she did not get a break, she always resolved the matter.

Additionally, we note that complainant's clock ring records indicate that

she worked at least eight hours a day with thirty minute lunches during

the relevant time period and do not reflect that she was deprived of

any work time or breaks of any kind. We find that complainant failed

to provide any evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could

conclude that the agency's explanations for its actions were pretext

for unlawful discrimination. Thus, we find that the AJ properly found

no discrimination.

CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final order,

because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a

hearing was appropriate, and a preponderance of the record evidence does

not establish that discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 77960,

Washington, D.C. 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with the Court 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

08/25/09

__________________

Date

1 The record reflects that that complainant works as an Entrance Control

Clerk pursuant to a limited duty assignment. Complainant's regular

assignment is as a Parcel Post Distribution Clark.

2 We do note, however, that complainant received the Employee of the

Month award in October 2007.

??

??

??

??

2

0120083129

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

6

0120083129