01a03308
07-19-2000
Doretha S. Corley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Doretha S. Corley v. United States Postal Service
01A03308
July 19, 2000
Doretha S. Corley, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A03308
v. ) Agency No. 1J-605-0042-98
) Hearing No. 210-99-6450X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the bases of race (Black), and sex (female),
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant alleges she was discriminated
against on July 10, 1998, when she was removed from her position at the
agency. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final action.
The record reveals that complainant, a probationary Part-time Flexible
Flat Sorter Clerk at the agency's Fox Valley, Illinois facility, filed
a formal EEO complaint with the agency on November 13, 1998, alleging
that the agency had discriminated against her when she was removed from
her position for �attendance, conduct and attitude.� At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race and sex discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that
similarly situated employees not in her protected classes were treated
differently under similar circumstances when they were not removed from
their probationary positions at the agency.
The AJ then concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that complainant had
not completed the required overtime called by the agency on July 1, 1998,
despite the order from her supervisor that she stay. The agency also
presented evidence that complainant had crumpled up a leave request which
had been denied in front of her supervisor and then left the facility
against the supervisor's orders. Complainant also left the facility
without leave having been approved on July 10, 1998. The AJ found that
complainant did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's
articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant
makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we
affirm its final action.
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. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate
where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive
law, no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if the
evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the
non-moving party. Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st
Cir. 1988). In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title
VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation,
complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or
her case. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173
(3d Cir. 1988). In determining whether to grant summary judgment,
the trier of fact'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. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
After a careful review of the record, we find the AJ properly determined
that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case.
Specifically, we find that complainant failed to set forth sufficient
facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. Moreover,
complainant failed to provide in this appeal any evidence or argument
that material issues are in dispute. Therefore, we concur in the AJ's
determination and find that summary judgment was appropriate in this
case.
Based on our careful de novo review of the entire record before us,
the Commission finds that the AJ's findings and conclusions properly
summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations,
policies, and laws. We conclude that complainant failed to establish by
preponderant evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's race or sex. Accordingly,
we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's findings and conclusions or
the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful
review of the record, we AFFIRM the agency's final action.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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 (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:
07-19-00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 On 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.