Eddie Mills, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 5, 2009
0120072108 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 5, 2009)

0120072108

08-05-2009

Eddie Mills, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Eddie Mills,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072108

Hearing No. 250-2005-000314X

Agency No. 1H-372-0007-01

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated February

22, 2007, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. In his

complaint, dated May 18, 2001, complainant, an equipment operator in

the agency's Mail Handler craft, alleged discrimination based on race

(African American), color (black), sex (male), disability (sinusitis),

and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on March 20, 2001, he was

denied work within his medical restrictions.

Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant

requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On February

8, 2007, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no

discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.

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. In this case, the AJ

determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a

prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incident. The AJ noted that on

February 1, 2001, complainant was previously placed on limited duty at the

agency's Chattanooga P&DC and he was given chores in an air conditioned

office as result of restrictions limiting his access to extreme hot or

cold temperatures, high humidity, dust or fumes. Thereafter, on March 6,

2001, based on OWCP's determination, complainant was placed on light duty.

The AJ noted that while complainant was on limited duty, the agency

had duty to create a job for complainant and the agency did so; but,

when complainant was on light duty, the agency had no duty to create a

job but instead only determine whether any jobs were available within

complainant's limitations.

At the time of alleged incident, on March 20, 2001, the agency's light

duty committee found there was no work available within complainant's

restrictions. Specifically, the agency, undisputed by complainant,

stated that complainant was not able to work on the workroom floor due

to the dust; he could only work in a dust/mold free environment. The AJ

stated that complainant failed to identify any persons who performed

work identical to his who received different treatment.

After a review of the record, we agree with the AJ that complainant

failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

the alleged incident. Assuming (without deciding) that complainant

was an individual with a disability, we also find that complainant

failed to show that he was denied a reasonable accommodation or that

any agency actions were motivated by discrimination. Complainant does

not allege that he was required to perform his duties beyond his medical

restrictions nor does he show that there was any vacant funded position

that met his medical restrictions.

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

8/5/09

__________________

Date

2

0120072108

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013