David R. Langevin, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 20, 2009
0120090378 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 20, 2009)

0120090378

02-20-2009

David R. Langevin, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


David R. Langevin,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120090378

Hearing No. 520-2008-00241X

Agency No. 4B-018-0061-07

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's September 24, 2008 final

order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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., Section

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

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following

reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as an Automotive Technician at the agency's Vehicle Maintenance Facility

(VMF) in Springfield, Massachusetts. On September 26, 2007, complainant

filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against on the

bases of disability (back, neck, shoulders), age (63), and in reprisal

for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 when:

1. On or about June 1, 2007, complainant's supervisor made

derogatory comments about complainant's age, and

2. On or about June 22, 2007, subsequently outsourced

complainant's vehicle shuttling duties.

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

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a

hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested

a hearing. When complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to the

case granted the agency's July 3, 2008 motion for a decision without a

hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on September 12, 2008.

In his decision, the AJ found that the material facts were not in dispute.

Specifically, complainant's supervisor (S1) admitted that he had made

comments that complainant found offensive. S1 had been complainant's

co-worker prior to S1's promotion to the position of supervisor. On one

occasion, S1 referred to complainant and a group of employees as a "bunch

of old fucks", and on another occasion, suggested that the agency should

have a vending machine with erectile dysfunction drugs and geriatric

vitamin supplements. S1, the AJ noted, had also commented to complainant

that complainant's manner of driving was for "old men and old ladies."

The AJ further found that S1 was counseled by his supervisor (S2), who

cautioned S1 that he was now a member of management and was not permitted

to joke around with subordinates who were previously his co-workers.

The AJ found that these incidents were insufficient to render complainant

aggrieved. Regarding claim 2, the AJ found no discriminatory motive

for the decrease in complainant's shuttling opportunities .

Accordingly, the AJ found that complainant failed to show that

discrimination occurred. The agency subsequently issued a final order

adopting the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that he was

subjected to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, the agency argues that

the outsourcing of the shuttling duties similarly affected someone outside

of complainant's protected classes and that the outsourcing started

before complainant's protected activity, thus rendering retaliation

impossible for the outsourcing.

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.

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).

Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding

a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling

is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without

a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed

material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and

(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.

According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary

judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the

opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the

administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount

of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision

without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that an

administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving

an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must

satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court

in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant

must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he or

she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances

that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction

Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will

vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,

411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. 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). To ultimately

prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor

Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

To establish a claim of harassment based on race, sex, disability, age,

or reprisal, complainant must show that: (1) he is a member of the

statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected to harassment in the

form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected

class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily

protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of

employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering

with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or

offensive work environment. Humphrey v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11. The

harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a

reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).

Further, the incidents must have been "sufficiently severe and pervasive

to alter the conditions of complainant's employment and create an abusive

working environment." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21

(1993); see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 23 U.S. 75

(1998). In the case of harassment by a supervisor, complainant must

also show that there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer.

See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).

Complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination

by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to

an inference of discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Admin.,

EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). Specifically, in a reprisal

claim, and in accordance with the burdens set forth in McDonnell

Douglas, Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,

425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976),

and Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960473

(November 20, 1997), a complainant may establish a prima facie case of

reprisal by showing that: (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity;

(2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently,

he or she was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a

nexus exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment.

Whitmire v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340

(September 25, 2000).

In the instant case, we find the AJ properly issued his decision

without a hearing. We find the relevant facts are not in dispute.

We assume for this decision, as did the AJ, for purposes of this decision

(without so finding), that complainant is a qualified individual with

a disability as defined by the Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. We concur with the AJ's

findings that the handful of derogatory comments uttered by S1, were

not so numerous or egregious as to render complainant aggrieved and

do not constitute a hostile work environment. We further find, as did

the AJ that complainant's vehicle shuttling duties had decreased before

complainant initiated the EEO process. We find nothing in the record to

associate complainant's claimed disability or his age with the agency's

decision to use a vendor to provide shuttling services to the agency.

We find that taking every reasonable inference in complainant's favor,

that complainant has not established that he was subjected to age,

disability, or reprisal discrimination.

We AFFIRM the agency's final decision, finding no discrimination.

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

February 20, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120090378

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

6

0120090378