0120071393
01-23-2009
Craig M. Steffen, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Craig M. Steffen,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120071393
Hearing No. 443-2006-00052X
Agency No. 1J-531-0040-06
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated December
14, 2006, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. In his
complaint, dated February 10, 2006, complainant, a former Mail Handler,
M-04, at the agency's Milwaukee Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC),
alleged discrimination based on disability (back) when he received a copy
of PS Form 50, Notification of Personnel Action with an effective date
of January 10, 2006, informing him that he was terminated for failure to
comply with a Pre-Arbitration Settlement Agreement dated September 30,
2005, which he signed on October 6, 2005.
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ
issued her decision without a hearing finding complainant failed to
prove he was subjected to discrimination. Thereafter, the agency
fully implemented the AJ's decision. Specifically, the agency stated
that complainant failed to establish that he was discriminated against
concerning the matters raised in the complaint.
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.
The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate, as
no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Upon review, we find that,
assuming arguendo that complainant had established a prima facie case of
discrimination, the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the alleged termination. Specifically, the agency Labor
Relations Specialist stated that she removed complainant solely based on
the September 30, 2005 Pre-Arbitration Settlement Agreement. Complainant
clearly admitted that he failed to comply with the terms specified in the
agreement. It is noted that complainant did not identify any similarly
situated employees treated differently under similar circumstances.
The record indicates that complainant had been absent from his work
since May 5, 2003, and his last day in a pay status was April 16, 2004.
We note that complainant also claimed that he was misled into signing
the September 30, 2005 agreement. However, we note that this matter
is not properly before us and complainant is advised to raise the same
through a grievance process.1
After a review of the record, we find that complainant failed to rebut
the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination.
In this decision, we do not decide whether complainant was a qualified
individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.
We also note that complainant has not claimed that he requested reasonable
accommodation prior to his January 2006 termination or that he was made
to work beyond his medical limitations. Specifically, we note in his
affidavit complainant states he was able to perform the duties of his
job without accommodation.
Accordingly, the agency's final action is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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, DC 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
1/23/09
__________________
Date
1 The record indicates that complainant was previously issued a notice
of removal on January 6, 2005, due to his AWOL. He, subsequently, filed
a grievance which was denied. The record indicates that the parties
thereafter entered into the September 30, 2005 settlement agreement, at
issue, wherein which complainant agreed to apply for disability retirement
if he could not return to full duty. The agency stated that they wanted
to give complainant the opportunity to resign or apply for disability,
rather than have the arbitrator remove him for AWOL, but he failed to
do either.
??
??
??
??
2
0120071393
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013