0120111182
12-20-2011
Deshonda R. Goode, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Metro Area), Agency.
Deshonda R. Goode,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(New York Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111182
Hearing No. 520-2010-00293X
Agency No. 4A117008009
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s November 19, 2010,
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.
The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 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 a Letter Carrier at the Hempstead, New York Post Office.
On November 24, 2009, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race/national origin
(African American), color (Black), and reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, on June
24, 2009, she was issued a notice of removal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
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. Without objections from either party, the AJ
assigned to the case issued a decision without a hearing on October 28,
2010. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s
finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her
to discrimination as alleged.
In her decision, the AJ found Complainant was removed from her position
on the charge of Failure to Operate a Motor Vehicle in a Safe Manner/
Failure to Follow Instructions. Briefly, the notice of removal indicated
Complainant was observed failing to wear her seat belt, making a u-turn,
and failing to have her vehicle door closed when entering or crossing an
intersection. The AJ noted that Complainant had four previous accidents
within the past five years. There were two vehicle accidents and two
industrial accidents. In addition, Complainant had six worker’s
compensation claims for work-related injuries.
The AJ found that Complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination because she asserted that she was treated more harshly
than other employees who were not within her protected class. However,
management witnesses provided evidence that many employees outside of
her protected class were punished for similar actions. The AJ also
noted that among the other employees who were disciplined, only four had
any previous violations. The AJ indicated that it was undisputed that
Complainant had received two 14-day suspension letters and four seven-day
suspension letters, as well as a letter of warning. The Agency asserted
that Complainant was removed because of her inability to work in a safe
manner and because her work performance and attendance had not shown
any improvement. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that
the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We must determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have
issued a decision without a hearing on this record. 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.
Upon review of the record we find that the AJ properly found that the
instant complaint was suitable for summary judgment. The record is
adequately developed and there are no identified disputes of material
fact. Moreover, we note that both parties moved for a decision by
summary judgment.
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).
He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he 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). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with, however, when the agency has articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United States Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983);
Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a
pretext for discrimination. 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); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Upon review of the record we find that Complainant has failed to prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s reasons for its
actions were a pretext for discrimination. Rather, as noted by the AJ,
Complainant had a history of accidents and a lengthy disciplinary record
including previous 14-day and 7-day suspensions. Thus, the Agency’s
legitimate reasons for its actions are well supported by the undisputed
evidence of record.
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
December 20, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120111182
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111182